URBAN TRANSFORMATION OF OTTOMAN PORT CITIES IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY: CHANGE FROM OTTOMAN BEIRUT
TO FRENCH MANDATORY BEIRUT
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.
iii
PLAGIARISM
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Pelin Kihtir Öztürk
Signature :
iv
ABSTRACT
URBAN TRANSFORMATION OF OTTOMAN PORT CITIES IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY: CHANGE FROM OTTOMAN BEIRUT TO
FRENCH MANDATORY BEIRUT
Kihtir Öztürk, Pelin
M.S., Department of Middle East Studies
Supervisor: Prof.Dr. Sevgi Aktüre
September 2006, 151 pages
This thesis attempts to give the increasing importance of Ottoman port cities in the
urban hierarchy during the nineteenth century and analyzes the urban transformation
of these cities under the forces of changing administrative and socio-economic
structure of the empire. The impact of European economic penetration and Ottoman
Tanzimat Reforms were indicated as major causes for this changing structure.
Beirut, being one of the major port cities of the Ottoman Empire is studied as a case
study. The changing administrative and socio-economic structure of the Empire
created an urban transformation which changed the city to a cosmopolitan trade
capital from a small fortified port city.
Keywords: Beirut, Port City, 19th Century, Ottoman, Urban Transformation
v
ÖZ
ONDOKUZUNCU YÜZYIL OSMANLI LİMAN KENTLERİNDE KENTSEL
DÖNÜŞÜM: OSMANLI BEYRUT’UNDAN FRANSIZ MANDASI BEYRUT’A
Kihtir Öztürk, Pelin
Yüksek Lisans, Orta Doğu Çalışmaları Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof.Dr. Sevgi Aktüre
Eylül 2006, 151 sayfa
Bu tez, ondokuzuncu yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda değişen idari ve sosyoekonomik
yapının etkisiyle, liman kentlerinin kent hiyerarşisinde artan önemini
vermeye çalışmakta ve kentsel dönüşümlerini analiz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada
Avrupa’nın ekonomide etkili olmaya başlaması ve Osmanlı Tanzimat Reformları
değişen idari ve sosyo-ekonomik yapının ana nedenleri olarak gösterilmektedir.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun en önemli liman kentlerinden biri olan Beyrut bu
çalışmada örnek olarak alınmıştır. İmparatorluğun ondokuzuncu yüzyıl süresince
değişen idari ve sosyo-ekonomik yapısı, Beyrut’un çevresi surlarla çevrili küçük bir
liman kenti iken kozmopolit bir tiracet merkezi olmasına neden olan bir kentsel
dönüşüm yaşamasını sağlamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Beyrut, Liman Kenti, 19. Yüzyıl, Osmanlı, Kentsel Dönüşüm
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof.Dr. Sevgi Aktüre,
for her encouragement, guidance and valuable suggestions during my study and I
would also like to thank her for introducing me with urban history.
I am also grateful to the other members of my examining committee; Assoc.Prof.Dr.
Recep Boztremur and Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ali Uzay Peker for their comments and
evaluations.
I would like to thank the staff of Jafet Library in American University of Beirut for
their help.
I would like to give my special thanks to my office friends at Middle East Technical
University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Dean’s Office for their understanding
during my master’s education.
Finally my dear husband Bülent Öztürk deserves the greatest of thanks for his
infinite support and I am pleased to have my cats Şaşkın’s and Fıstık’s lovely
company all the time.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ................................................................................................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER .................................................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Content of the Study................................................................. 1
1.2 Aim of the Study.............................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Port Cities and Change in the Colonial Era .......................... 4
1.2.2 Port Cities in the Ottoman Empire and Trade Routes in
the Nineteenth Century ....................................................... 13
1.3 A Method of Study for Port City Models ...................................... 24
2. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND
URBAN TRANSFORMATION .................................................................. 29
2.1 Political and Administrative Changes ........................................... 29
2.1.1 Increasing European Influence and Tanzimat Reforms ...... 30
2.1.2 Regulations and Laws of the Tanzimat Era Related to
Urban Transformation......................................................... 33
2.1.3 Establishment of Municipalities.......................................... 36
2.1.4 Colonialism in the Middle East........................................... 38
vii i
2.2 Socio-Economic Changes.............................................................. 39
2.2.1 Anglo-Ottoman Trade Agreements..................................... 40
2.2.2 Fall of Traditional Productions Centers .............................. 42
2.2.3 Rise of Port Cities ............................................................... 44
2.3 Spatial Changes in Cities ............................................................... 45
2.3.1 Creation of a New City Center............................................ 46
2.3.2 Changing Street System ...................................................... 49
2.3.3 Creation of New Residential Areas..................................... 50
2.3.4 Other Construction Activities ............................................. 51
3. BEIRUT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY............................................ 52
3.1 Historical Overview of Beirut before the Nineteenth Century...... 52
3.2 Socio-Economic Transformation of Beirut in the Nineteenth
Century .......................................................................................... 56
3.2.1 Egyptian Occupation and Creation of a New Center .......... 56
3.2.2 Reestablishment of Ottoman Rule and Changing Nature
of Trade Activities with the Impact of Foreign Market ...... 58
3.2.3 Population Changes Due to Regional and International
Migration............................................................................. 64
3.2.4 1860 Civil War and its Consequences ................................ 70
3.2.5 Changing Social Structure................................................... 72
3.3 Transformation of Urban Pattern and the Planning History of
Beirut ............................................................................................. 79
3.3.1 Urban Macroform in the First Half of the Century............. 79
3.3.2 Urban Growth and Spatial Formations in the Second
Half of the Century.............................................................. 88
3.3.2.1 Urban Growth........................................................ 88
3.3.2.2 Changing City Center............................................ 96
ix
3.3.2.3 Transportation Facilities...................................... 100
3.3.2.4 Formation of New Quarters................................. 101
3.3.2.5 Other Construction Facilities .............................. 105
3.3.3 First Planning Acts and Application of Danger Plan........ 106
4. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 129
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 135
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 143
A. POPULATION OF BEIRUT..................................................................... 143
B. BEIRUT MAP PREPARED BY A.L. MANSEL...................................... 148
C. PLAN OF BEIRUT CITY TAKEN FROM THE ARCHIVES OF THE
OTTOMAN WATER COMPANY OF BEIRUT ...................................... 150
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Shipping Tonnage Entering Main Ottoman Ports, 1830-1913
(thousand tons) ............................................................................................16
Table 1.2 Relative Importance of Ottoman Ports, 1907 (% of total trade) .................22
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Changing Urban Pattern in Southeast Asia. ................................................8
Figure 1.2 Changing Circulation System in Morocco. .................................................9
Figure 1.3 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1800).................................10
Figure 1.4 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1880).................................11
Figure 1.5 Transportation Routes in Anatolia in the Seventeenth Century. ...............15
Figure 1.6 Railroads in the Ottoman Empire (c. 1914)...............................................19
Figure 1.7 The Middle Eastern City Model ................................................................25
Figure 1.8 Proposed Model of the Middle Eastern Port City......................................26
Figure 1.9 Land-Use Map of Beirut............................................................................28
Figure 3.1 Population Change in Beirut......................................................................66
Figure 3.2 Population Change in Beirut with Respect to Different Religious
Groups ........................................................................................................67
Figure 3.3 Population of Cities of Lebanon by the Beginning of the Twentieth
Century. ......................................................................................................78
Figure 3.4 Map of Beirut and its environs in 1841 .....................................................84
Figure 3.5 Map of Beirut in 1841. ..............................................................................85
Figure 3.6 Landuse Map of Beirut in 1841 .................................................................86
Figure 3.7 Cardo Decumanus Trails of Beirut...........................................................87
Figure 3.8 Pedestrian Network of Beirut. ...................................................................88
Figure 3.9 Distribution of Christian Population in the City Center of Beirut (c.
1810)...........................................................................................................88
Figure 3.10 1876 Map of Beirut by Julius Loytved....................................................94
Figure 3.11 Landuse Map of Beirut (c.1880)..............................................................95
xii
Figure 3.12 Development of Urban Pattern of Beirut in Stages .................................96
Figure 3.13 Transformation of Beirut City Center (1841 – 1876)..............................99
Figure 3.14 Development of Hamra District by the Maps of 1876, 1919 and
1928........................................................................................................104
Figure 3.15 Main Streets of the City Center of Beirut..............................................112
Figure 3.16 Place d’Etoile from Danger Plan of Beirut............................................113
Figure 3.17 Place d’Etoile from 1936 Map of Beirut. ..............................................113
Figure 3.18 The Bourj Axis. .....................................................................................113
Figure 3.19 Danger Plan, 1931. ................................................................................114
Figure 3.20 Map of Beirut , 1936..............................................................................115
Figure 3.21 Beirut in 1840s. Drawing by Max Schmidt...........................................116
Figure 3.22 Bab el Derkeh from inside the walls in 1830s. Engraving by Leon
…............................................................................................................116
Figure 3.23 Beirut Panorama from Ras Beirut in 1842. Gravure by George
Skene Keith............................................................................................117
Figure 3.24 Ain el-Mreisseh area, east of Ras-Beirut, 1897. Photograph by
Adrien Bonfils........................................................................................117
Figure 3.25 View of Ain el-Mreisseh Area from the Tower of Syrian Protestant
College, 1894. Photograph by Dr. Franklin T. Moore...........................118
Figure 3.26 Panoramic Photograph of Achrafieh Quarter, 1870. Photograph by
Felix Bonfils...........................................................................................118
Figure 3.27 Postcard of Rue-Echrefie.......................................................................119
Figure 3.28 Postcard of Hotel d’Orient.....................................................................119
Figure 3.29 Postcard of Khan Antoun Bey Square...................................................120
Figure 3.30 View of Khan Antoun Bey Square. Anonym Photograph.....................120
Figure 3.31 Place des Canons, c.1900. Photograph by Eric Matson. .......................121
Figure 3.32 Place des Canons, c.1890. Anonym Photograph. ..................................121
xii i
Figure 3.33 Postcard of Place des Canons. ...............................................................122
Figure 3.34 Postcard of Grand Serail (Imperial Barracks). ......................................122
Figure 3.35 Beirut view from Grand Serail, 1902. Photograpf by Sarrafian Bros. ..123
Figure 3.36 Postcard of Grand Serail and the Clock Tower. ....................................123
Figure 3.37 Postcard of Souk el Gemil. ....................................................................124
Figure 3.38 Weygand Street......................................................................................124
Figure 3.39 A villa on Bliss Street............................................................................125
Figure 3.41 The intersection of Abdul Aziz and Bliss Streets, c. 1900. ...................126
Figure 3.42 Hamra Street, c. 1900. ...........................................................................126
Figure 3.43 Postcard of Avenue des Français...........................................................127
Figure 3.44 Postcard of Rue Bab Idriss. ...................................................................127
Figure 3.45 Postcard of General Foch Street ............................................................128
Figure 3.46 Postcard of Allenby Street. ....................................................................128
1
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The fate of our cities provides a key to the fate of our civilizations.
(Brown 1973, 15)
1.1 The Content of the Study
In the world context under the subject of colonial experiences from the eighteenth
century to twentieth century in different regions, the distribution of cities in the urban
pattern changed in favor of coastal areas. The port cities witnessed an urban growth
along with the changes in the trade routes. The Ottoman Empire experienced this
change in the urban pattern during the nineteenth century when the trade routes
changed their directions to ports instead of traditional inland trade centers. While the
inland cities stagnated during this era, the port cities gained importance and grew.
The urban growth brought new functions into the cities which lead to changes in the
socio-economic structure. The impact of European influence and local forces played
a role in the change of socio-economic structure and in the change of urban pattern
so the port cities witnessed an urban transformation having both the effects of
European and local influences in urban transformation.
The change in the urban pattern in South Asia, North Africa and Middle East is given
in the introduction chapter that a similar formation can be observed in different
2
regions in different time periods; port cities became nodal points for the regions. The
increasing importance of port cities in the Ottoman Empire under the changing
context of nineteenth century and the reasons for selecting Beirut as the case study
are also given in this chapter. In the last section of the introduction chapter, a port
city model for the Middle Eastern region was put forward that would contribute as
the model for the study of urban transformation of Beirut.
The nineteenth century was a period when the modernizing efforts of the Ottoman
state were at their peak. Modernization of the Ottoman state and society under the
strong influence of Europe inevitably brought changes into the administrative, socioeconomic
and spatial organization of the cities as well as in the lifestyles of urban
dwellers. In order to give a critical perspective for these changes in the Ottoman
Empire in the nineteenth century, Chapter II firstly analyzes the effect of European
influence and the making of Tanzimat reforms which had effects on the
transformation of the institutional structure of the cities and resulted in the changes
on the political and administrative sphere. Chapter II continues with analyzing the
effects of European influence and intervention on the socio-economic structure of the
cities in the context of trade relations and changing urban system; the fall of
traditional production and caravan centers and the rise of port cities. The
transformation of the socio-economic structure of the Ottoman Empire in the
nineteenth century resulted in the significant changes in the urban physical structure.
The changes occurred with the demands of the new classes with respect to new
institutions and urban space would be discussed in the last part of this chapter.
This general introduction to the field of political, administrative, socio-economic and
spatial changes in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century, in accordance with
the increasing European influence and intervention, is followed by the case study of
Beirut. Chapter III starts with the general historical overview of Beirut before the
nineteenth century. The changes that had effects on the changing socio-economic
3
structure of the city of Beirut is given in the following section of this chapter from
the beginning of the nineteenth century with the Egyptian occupation and continued
with the following decades of reestablishment of the Ottoman rule in the region.
Although the Ottoman rule was reestablished, the period of European dominance that
started during the Egyptian occupation continued with the Ottoman rule. So a dual
system of power existed in the city. The first one came with the new reforms of the
Ottoman administration and the second one came with the European intervention and
the increasing trade relations with foreign countries. The socio economic effects of
this dual system are given in the following parts of this section. The changes in the
demographic structure are given in the preceding part with the changing urban
hierarchy in the region around Beirut. The reasons and consequences of this change
are studied in this section. Regional migration because of the sectarian conflicts in
the interior regions and international migration because of the increasing importance
of port facilities of Beirut are given.
The last section of Chapter III gives a detailed study of the urban transformation of
Beirut in the nineteenth century within the given factors in the preceding chapters
and sections. The sequence of presentation in this section is formed in chronological
order to see the transformation of the city. The urban macroform of Beirut before
mid-century is studied to show the first stage as the consequences of the changes
were not observable in this era yet. But in the second half of the century the city
faced building activities that changed its urban macroform and spatial formations. As
the result of changing urban administration in the Ottoman Empire with the Tanzimat
Reforms, the establishment of new institutions and the municipalities in the cities had
its developments in Beirut. The increasing European influence also had its
developments with the establishment of European supported transportation and
communication facilities. In the final part of this chapter the first planning acts in
Beirut performed during the French Mandate era is given whether applied or not.
4
1.2 Aim of the Study
1.2.1 Port Cities and Change in the Colonial Era
Port cities acted as points of economic and social change by the process of
colonization or semi-colonization in many regions of the world. The countries in the
Indian Ocean faced the colonization era in the eighteenth century and the urban
pattern of the region has changed due to European powers. The port cities in the
Indian Ocean became colonial cities and they became major points for economic
activities. Port cities of Cape Town, Karachi, Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai),
Calcuta, Rangoon, Singapore and Jakarta (Batavia) on the Indian Ocean became
bridgeheads for the establishment of European territorial empires (McPherson 2002,
76). By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the colonization acts moved to the
Middle East and North Africa that these regions also witnessed almost similar
process of colonization or semi-colonization. In the Middle East, ports of the
Ottoman Empire attracted the most interest that the port towns like İstanbul, İzmir,
Selanik, Beirut, Haifa and Alexandria became home to large European communities
involved in commerce and political affairs. On the North African shores, especially
the cities of Tunis, Algiers, Casablanca and Rabat became centers for European
dominance (Abu-Lughod 1980, 37).
Port cities attracted settlers from many ethnic groups who took advantage of the new
economic order introduced by the European rule. They became primary actors in the
process of social, cultural, political, and economic evolution in their regions. Port
cities were the places where the people of the region met and interacted with one
another and with people from the West. In ports new economic processes and
population movements made the population of the port cities different from the
population of inner regions. But they could not exist isolated from their hinterland
and consequently affected their interior regions.
5
The ports were affected not only by changing economic and political circumstances,
but by new technologies as well. The introduction of steam and steel in shipping and
railroads rapidly reflected in the major European controlled ports where new
facilities were provided to meet these new innovations. Some port cities became
major gathering points for sea and rail routes and the neighboring ports were reduced
to lower status in the settlement hierarchy with vanishing functions.
Steamships, railroads, telegraph lines, banks, new business houses and institutions,
health centers, and new educational and cultural services that growing European
communities demanded were established by the arrival of the European population in
the port cities. Medical advances reduced the mortality rate among Europeans in the
colonial towns and encouraged greater numbers of European settler families.
European rule led to new opportunities that in many port cities they established their
own schools, newspapers, associations, hospitals, businesses and factories. This
process also included the adoption of European cultural habits, dresses housing and
architecture inside the local population.
The changes in the nineteenth century not only brought changes in the settlement
hierarchy of the cities but also brought changes in the distribution pattern of the rural
settlements. Between the sixteenth and eighteenth century the villages generally
occupied the hills and the mountains instead of plain areas because of the interior
struggles of the era. By the nineteenth century the settlement pattern changed in
favor of plain areas for two reasons. Firstly, the increasing trade with the European
countries made the cultivation of the plain areas necessary. Secondly the government
wanted to settle down the nomadic groups and the migrants and chose to settle them
on the plains for security and for the establishment of an administrative system
(Tekeli 1985, 881).
6
The overall changes affected the urban pattern of the regions. The case for the
Southeast Asia can be observed in Figure 1.1. Cities were more spread in the region
before the colonization era. For the geography of the region, consisting of many
islands and gulfs on the main land, most of the settlements were on the shore line
although the inland settlements also existed and there were both inland and coastal
centers. By the end of the eighteenth century some cities became controlled by
European powers and some became settlements for western trading establishments
which lead to the growth of these cities. The existing urban pattern started to change
and the change became visible by the beginning of the nineteenth century. The inland
cities almost became extinct as compared to the populations of the cities in coastal
lines.
A similar case could be observed in the Middle East and North Africa. Before
examining the Middle East and the Ottoman lands as the major subject of this study,
the changing urban pattern in North Africa would be given. Figure 1.2 depicts the
changing pattern of circulation system. In comparison of the sixteenth and the
twentieth centuries the major distribution centers changed from the inland centers to
coastal towns. Fez and Marrakech were the two largest cities in the country by the
sixteenth century and onwards but they began to stagnate while new centers started
to emerge with the start of the colonization in this region. As the process of change in
Moroccan cities started a century after the change of the Southeast Asian cities the
outcome in the urban pattern showed similar characteristics. Casablanca, which was
a small port village before, became the commercial and industrial center while its
neighbor Rabat which was also a small port village and a military ground became the
official capital of the French administration. These two coastal towns shared the new
growth and became the new centers of the country (Abu-Lughod 1980, 34).
In the case of Middle East a similar analysis could also be made. By the nineteenth
century, the relationship between the port and hinterland changed rapidly in the
7
Middle East. Ports became the focal points for the establishment of European
political and economic dominance. Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 shows the changing
urban hierarchy in the region in the nineteenth century with the comparison of
population of the cities. Figure 1.3 shows the city size distributions in the beginning
of the nineteenth century that the most of the population gathered in the major inland
cities like, Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo, Musul and Baghdad. By the end of the century
as shown on Figure 1.4 the city size distributions differentiated from the beginning of
the century. While the cities of Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad grown, the port cities
of Alexandria, Beirut and Basra came into existence as major cities in the urban
hierarchy. There are also other points that can be observed through these figures as
follows. The city of Aleppo stagnated during the century as a consequence of fall of
traditional production centers as will be discussed in the following parts of this study.
The city of Tripoli lost its position in the urban pattern as Beirut grown enormously
during the nineteenth century. While Tripoli losing its importance Beirut gained the
role of Tripoli besides gaining the role of becoming a major port for the region,
especially serving for its hinterland and for Damascus. In the comparison of
Alexandria and Beirut as they similar characteristics like they both served for a major
inland city, Cairo for Alexandria and Damascus for Beirut, Beirut went far ahead in
the hierarchy. By the beginning of the nineteenth century the population of
Alexandria was 15.000, and the population of Beirut was 4.000. But by the end of the
century the populations reached, 50.000 and 120.000 respectively.
Source: McGee 1967, 35, 44, 53, 66.
Figure 1.1 Changing Urban Pattern in Southeast Asia.
8
Source: Abu-Lughod 1980, 22, 33-34.
Figure 1.2 Changing Circulation System in Morocco.
9
Source: The map is digitized from the unpublished drawing of Aktüre. Data collected from the following:
Gibb and Bowen 1950, 280-281; Issawi 1969, 102-103; Issawi 1982, 101.
Figure 1.3 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1800)
Figure 1.3 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1800)
10
Source: Aktüre, Sevgi. nd. The map is digitized from the unpublished drawing of Aktüre based on the
following: Cuinet, V. 1894. La Turquie d’Asie. Vol. 2 and 3. Paris:Ernest Leroux; Cuinet, V. 1896.
Syrie, Liban et Palestine.Paris:Ernest Lenoux; McCarthy, J.A. 1970. 19thCentury Egyptian
Population. In The Middle Eastern Economy.
Figure 1.4 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1880)
Figure 1.4 City Size Distributions in the Middle East (c. 1880)
11
12
The opening of the Suez Canal, the British occupation of Egypt, and the
establishment of French and Italian colonies in the Red Sea changed the hierarchy in
the port cities of the region. By the nineteenth century, colonial expansion in the
Middle East and North Africa led to the rise of a number of major European
dominated ports. Following the British occupation of Egypt, the port of Alexandria
grew rapidly and emerged as a great cosmopolitan port serving for the cotton based
economy of Egypt and the transit trade of the Suez Canal. At the same time, a new
Mediterranean port was created at Port Said, with a twin port at Port Suez on the Red
Sea and new smaller ports were created along the Red Sea to serve the European
colonies. Then new smaller ports were developed along the Red Sea. The Suez Canal
also brought new routes for European countries to Indian Ocean region.
McPherson divides Middle Eastern ports into four categories that the first category
includes the ones that were integrated into a rich hinterland and were major
economic and political centers in the region, such as Alexandria and Haifa. The
second category consisted of the ports of main transit points for ships on long
distance voyages, such as Aden and Port Said. The third group of ports served
mainly for their rich hinterlands but did not become political centers in the region,
like Jiddah, Basra, Abadan. The last group of ports acted as both transit points for
ships on long distance and also served mainly for their rich hinterlands and besides
these became centers of European political and military power, such as Aden,
Massawa, and Djibouti. These categories represent the main functions of the ports
and give the reason for attraction of non-indigenous settlers. He continues that
Alexandria and Haifa had large non-Arab populations, including merchants, artisans,
and military and government personnel. In contrast Jiddah, Basra, and Abadan,
which were dependent to the inland centers in their hinterland, had smaller foreign
populations involved in a more limited range of activities. In between were ports
such as Aden, Massawa, and Djibouti, which were both centers of colonial
administration and served a relatively poor hinterland. Port Said was almost in a
category of its own, as it serviced both its Egyptian hinterland and ships passing
13
through the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. It was also a
major tourist port. Its mixed foreign population ranged from canal personnel to
service providers for the tourist industry. The size and nature of foreign settlements
in these ports varied and also the degree of interaction between indigenous
populations and foreign settlers also varied considerably (McPherson 2002, 87).
1.2.2 Port Cities in the Ottoman Empire and Trade Routes in the Nineteenth
Century
Before the nineteenth century the major cities of the Ottoman Empire were the inland
cities. The caravan routes determined the major cities and the port cities were not
involved in these trade routes. The cities in the interior regions acting as trade centers
were the dominant political and economic centers. Although the city of İstanbul,
functioned as an independent source of power and a major actor for change it had a
specific character coming from its past as the administrative and economic capital.
The interregional trade was done through two major caravan routes in the Anatolian
region of the empire. The first one was the diagonal route from Aleppo to İstanbul
and the second one was the north caravan route passing along the Iranian borders to
Erzurum and Tokat and to İstanbul. The major cities of the Empire existed on these
caravan routes by the sixteenth century. The north caravan route was headed to İzmir
by the seventeenth century which would be a starting point for the use of port cities
in the web of trade (Figure 1.5). Faroqhi’s study shows that the sea trade was not a
major factor for the urbanization of the Anatolian region of the Empire. During the
sixteenth century only Trabzon, Sinop and Antalya had active ports but they were
still small settlements with small amounts of populations. Other settlements on the
shores were İzmit, Edremit, Altınova, Foça, İzmir, Selçuk, Samsun and Ünye, but
they were smaller and were not using their ports to be considered in the web of trade.
The ports of Anatolia except İzmir generally worked for the regional trade inside the
14
Empire until the nineteenth century. The ones in the Black Sea region, acted as
intermediary points for the ships going to İstanbul (Faroqhi 2000, 93-95, 355). For
the case of Antalya İnalcık states that with the conquest of Egypt and with the
establishment of direct trade between Alexandria and İstanbul, the port of Antalya
lost its use for transportation and lost its importance as a trading post (İnalcık 1973,
128). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the increasing exports to the
European countries started to affect the port cities but the effects was not considered
until the nineteenth century in the growth of these cities and in the settlement
hierarchy of the Empire.
The invention of steam engine in the late eighteenth century and its application to
transportation changed the way that people and goods were moved, both on the sea
and on the land. Steamships made trustable voyages depending on time and reduced
the costs. Steamships began entering Ottoman ports in the 1820s. A British
steamship came to İstanbul in 1828, the first steamship entered Beirut in 1836 and
entered the Red Sea in 1840. At the end of the 1840s the British was operating
regular steamship transport in the Red Sea and several other European countries were
operating in Eastern Mediterranean and in the Black Sea region of the Empire. The
number of ships rose with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 (Issawi 1982, 45-
48).
Source: Aktüre 1981, 75.
Figure 1.5 Transportation Routes in Anatolia in the Seventeenth Century.
15
16
As the number of steamships rose, the amount of goods transported by sea rose
throughout the nineteenth century Table 1.1. Between 1800 and 1914 the total
volume of shipping at Alexandria rose from 140 to 3500 tons, at Basra shipping rose
from 10 to 400 tons, at Beirut rose from 40 to 1.700 tons, at İzmir from 100 to 2.200
tons and at Trabzon from 15 to over 500 tons.
Table 1.1 Shipping Tonnage Entering Main Ottoman Ports,
1830-1913 (thousand tons)
Source: Issawi 1982, 48.
Port 1830 1860 1890 1913
Alexandria 140 1.250 1.500 3.500
Basra 10 - 100 400
Beirut 40 400 600 1.700
İzmir 100 600 1.600 2.200
Trabzon 15 120 500 -
The ports of the empire became incapable by the growth in steamship traffic and the
increasing tons of goods transported to the ports that caused delays that lead to
increase in costs and unhappy merchants. Most Ottoman ports changed and
developed their facilities in the later decades of the nineteenth century (İnalcık and
Quataert 1994, 802). For example, when the number and the carriages of steamships
increased, the harbor of Beirut was insufficient for the larger ships (Fawaz 1983, 72).
To load and unload Beirut’s port, larger ships anchored offshore and lighter boats
carried the goods between the ships and the shore. This was a slow procedure that
17
often resulted in damages. Foreign merchants protested and pressured the
government for improvements (Issawi 1977, 93).
The major improvements in the ports made in the second half of the nineteenth
century were made by the support of European companies. They constructed and
then operated larger and more efficient port facilities especially at four major ports of
the Ottoman Empire, Selanik, İzmir, Beirut and İstanbul. The financial and technical
supports of the European countries were returned by the special privileges to the
merchants of these countries. In the 1860s and 1870s the Selanik railroad and port
facilities were improved, in 1867 the improvements in the İzmir harbor started and
completed in 1875. A French company developed Beirut’s port in 1894 with the
additions of new customs and quarantine buildings. Another French company at the
same time constructed new quays at the port of İstanbul (İnalcık and Quataert 1994,
803). The privileges given to the European countries and firms stimulated the
European intervention taking place in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century.
The railroad constructions connecting the ports to their hinterlands were the
complementary projects for the development of transportation facilities. By the
middle of the nineteenth century not a single track was constructed in the territories
of the Ottoman Empire but mainly after 1890, 7.500 km of track was constructed.
The majority of the tracks were built in the Balkans. The Anatolian and the Middle
Eastern provinces were far lacked behind by the end of the nineteenth century as can
be observed from Figure 1.6. British firms built the first railway in the Balkans, and
this was followed by the İzmir-Aydın railway. Selanik was connected to Skopje in
1871 and to Belgrade in 1888. The greatest of the European lines was the Oriental
Railway completed in 1888 and connected İstanbul to Edirne and Sofia with a branch
from Edirne to Selanik. In Anatolia, after the construction of İzmir-Aydın railway,
the construction of Anatolian line from İzmit to Ankara, with a branch to Konya was
held between the years 1890-1895. Railroad building in the Syrian provinces began
18
after the completion of Anatolian railway. The French firms built the first short line
between Jaffa and Jerusalem in 1891. The next line linked Damascus to wheat
growing districts in 1894 and this line was also connected to Beirut (İnalcık and
Quataert 1994, 805-808). The routes of the railroads show that the lines were
connecting the important interior cities and production centers with the coastal
towns. Railroads working with the ports promoted the flow of both imported
commodities from the foreign countries and the export of Ottoman raw materials.
Manufactured goods, especially textiles formed the vast majority of imports and this
was followed by coffee, sugar and coal.
The introduction of modern transport worked against Ottoman cultivation as it
evolved during the nineteenth century. A new control mechanism on the type of
products to be cultivated has been established as the modern transport technologies
were financed and controlled by European firms. The type of products to be
cultivated were started to be determined by the European merchants instead of local
forces. According to the needs of the European merchants the products collected
from the hinterland and were accumulated in the port cities.
Source: İnalcık, and Quataert 1994, 805.
Figure 1.6 Railroads in the Ottoman Empire (c. 1914)
19
20
This new system brought new market opportunities for the local population but on
the other hand these new market opportunities took them into the competition in the
world market. Ottoman grain and silk production could be given as an example. The
importance of Ottoman grains fell sharply in the international market over the
nineteenth century even in the local market as the foreign products were in the
market. The manufacture industry also faced the effects of this foreign intervention
in the local market. The cheap East Asian raw silk penetrated into the European
markets and the production of cheap manufactures became possible which affected
the production and manufacture of silk in the Ottoman Empire (İnalcık and Quataert
1994, 798).
The changing structure of the ports and the relative importance they gained by the
developments were the consequences of European countries’ self-interest rather than
the indigenous factors for change. Kasaba gives five major outside factors for the
development of port cities in the nineteenth century (Kasaba 1994, 8-9). The first
factor was the increasing demand of the European industry for raw materials and
agricultural products. The second factor was the increase in importance of the
Ottoman lands and sea for the use of communication lines with the Asian settlements
where the British stabilized their existence in the Indian territories. The third factor
came with the changing economic relations between America and the British
governments that this change made the British industrialists look for new sources of
raw materials that were obtained from America before. The fourth factor occurred
with the consequences of the French Revolution and the consequences of the
proceeding wars. The French merchants drew back from the Eastern trade
temporarily which resulted in the strengthening of local merchants in the regional
trade especially in the western regions of the Empire. Lastly the final factor came
with the British merchants that they were trying to break the French trade block
established by Napoleon.
21
The overall changes affected the populations directly. At the end of the eighteenth
century, Muslim merchants dominated Ottoman trade in many areas. They were
stronger in Syrian provinces, less strong in Anatolian provinces and least of all in
İstanbul. This pattern reflects the influence of European diplomats in the cities they
exist. The greater their existence, the better the protection they and Western
merchants could give to their non-Muslim Ottoman merchants. Most of the local
trade and the trade with Iran and India remained in Muslim hands. But by the
nineteenth century increasing trade with Europe and the relative decline of the
Eastern trade changed the formation of Ottoman merchant community dealing with
foreign commerce in favor of the non-Muslim Ottoman merchants. The non-Muslim
Ottoman population dominated the international trade in most Ottoman port cities,
where conditions favored them. Beirut as an example owed its existence to foreign
trade and non-Muslims dominated its commercial affairs (İnalcık and Quataert 1994,
838-840). It can be also said that for the situation in Beirut, both Muslim and non-
Muslim merchants in Beirut prospered. Muslims generally dominated the trade
between Beirut and its hinterland as in the interior regions the commercial activities
were still held by the Muslim merchants (Fawaz 1983, 95).
Beirut was one of the most important port cities in the Ottoman Empire (Table 1.2)
The relations with the European countries especially in the economic sphere made
the city one of the most dynamic and active city in Eastern Mediterranean. When the
Egyptian occupation opened up Eastern Mediterranean to European capitalism by the
beginning of the nineteenth century, in particular silk trade made Beirut the port-city
of Damascus. Foreign consulates and companies began to settle in Beirut from this
period onwards. In the middle of the nineteenth century when the Ottoman rule
established again in the region, Beirut had already become a place where foreigners
dominated the economic and political sphere. The city existed as the major port of
the region while the neighboring ports of Tripoli and Saida lost their chance to
become a trade center. These changes that the city went through also changed the
administrative status of the city. In 1861 Beirut became a mutasarrifate and in 1888 it
22
was promoted to become the capital of a province, which also carried its name,
Vilayet of Beirut.
Table 1.2 Relative Importance of Ottoman Ports, 1907 (% of total trade)
Source: İnalcık and Quataert 1994, 831.
İstanbul 33 Alexandria 5
İzmir 17 Edirne (via Dedeağaç) 4
Beirut 11 Yanina (Prevaza) 2
Salonica 11 Hicazi 1
Trabzon 7 Yemeni 1
Baghdad 6
The changing dynamic of Beirut came not only with the changing economic and
political sphere but also came with the changes in the society. The population
movements had enormous effects on the city. The civil war of 1860 in the Mount
Lebanon resulted in the influx of Christian refugees into the city. This also brought in
the European relief workers and missionaries to the city (Hanssen 2004, 123). So the
population pattern of the city changed enormously in favor of the non-Muslim
population.
The idea of selecting Beirut as the case study for the urban transformation of
Ottoman port cities in the nineteenth century came with the observable features of
23
the city according to the factors told in the preceding parts. According to the
categories put forward by McPherson (McPherson 2002, 87) for the Middle Eastern
ports, Beirut can be defined in the first category that the city was integrated into a
rich hinterland and was a major economic and political center in the region. While
Damascus was the only major city in the urban hierarchy of the region, by the second
half of the nineteenth century Beirut acquired its identity in the general trend of
increasing importance of port cities. This increase in importance pulled the outside
factors to the city.
The city was affected by the outside factors given by Kasaba (Kasaba 1994, 8-9).
Firstly the increasing demand of the European industry for raw materials and
agricultural products that for the case of Beirut silk and grains constituted the major
sources. The factor for the British merchants’ desire to break the French trade block
also affected the city that the silk trade was dominated by the British merchants
between 1830 and 1860 (Issawi 1977). The domination of steam ships in regular
trade activities in East Mediterranean after 1830’s also accelerated the development
of the port of Beirut. Beirut became the only port to stay for a while between İzmir
and Alexandria for almost ten years after 1830. This acceleration also continued by
the British trade that Beirut became the arrival point for the British goods which will
be transferred to Syria, to Anatolia and to Iran (Özveren 1994).
The growing importance of Beirut under the changing socio-economic forces
constituted a typical example for the nineteenth century Ottoman port cities. The
urban transformation of the city would occur as a major example that the changes in
the socio-economic and political levels had effects on the regional relations and the
new emerging trends in the relations brought changes in the urban structure of the
city.
24
1.3 A Method of Study for Port City Models
The model of port cities with certain shared features in common has been proposed
as a theoretical model to understand the role of port cities as the doors through which
European capitalism found its way into the Ottoman territories (Hanna 2005, 91).
Until the middle of the nineteenth century the existence of a port did not affect the
shape of the city so much when compared with an inland caravan city. The demand
for space in the port and its hinterland was small as the volume of trade was small
before the middle of the nineteenth century. Loading and unloading was generally
done by hand, transports to and from the port was on donkeys and camels or by
porters. Khans just near the ports were enough for the services of the ports including
warehouses, tax collectors, guards and repair-yards for small sailing craft. From the
mid-nineteenth century and through the beginning of the twentieth century the trade
by the ports of the region grew and the technology used for transportation changed.
First, sailing ships turned into steam powered ships which were much larger and
required deeper and wider ports. Secondly a differentiation in the loading and
unloading facilities has occurred with the changing cargo type like bulk oil, mixed
cargoes and passengers which needed more advanced services. Finally, changes took
place in the supporting services of the port and in its environment like customs,
customs agents, importers, exporters, transport services, bank lawyers, insurance
companies, travel and tour agents, etc (Soffer and Stern 1986, 103).
In the geographical context the port cities experienced the most observable change in
the nineteenth century. Inside the cities the old settlement areas and the new
established ones survived next to each other. The separation of quarters according to
religious and ethnic divisions turned into the separations according to class relations.
Soffer and Stern accepted the model of the Middle Eastern city as presented in
Figure 1.7 and paid a special attention for the differentiation of the Middle Eastern
port city models as presented in Figure 1.8.
Source: Soffer and Stern 1986, 102.
Figure 1.7 The Middle Eastern City Model
The model for the Middle Eastern city has two distinct parts. The first part contains
the old city with characteristic components like the central mosque, traditional
bazaars, khans, narrow winding streets, a fortification wall surrounding the old city
and quarters separated from each other with ethnic and religious identities. The
25
second part of the city is modern and contains the new city center. New residential
areas were built around this new central business district with mixed populations
separated according to income groups instead of ethnic and religious identities. With
the establishment of the railroad which reaches the transition area of the city, the
industrial zone was created by the spreading out of industrial developments on each
side of the tracks.
Source: Soffer and Stern 1986, 104
Figure 1.8 Proposed Model of the Middle Eastern Port City
The model for the Middle Eastern port city also had two main sections the old and
the new one but overlapping in this case. This overlapping was either partial or
complete, but the centers are always adjoining and linked, resulting from the
penetration of port services into the older part of the city attached to the port. The
26
27
expansion of the port in most cases has been linked to its historical site and has been
gradual. All the rings around the center are different from those of the inland city
model. The port city has been constructed on and around one center which combines
both old and new. On one side of the center, there were elements that belong to the
past and on the other side of the center there were elements belonging to the modern
part of the city. The recreation and beach areas and the upper and upper-middle
residential areas including foreign population constituted the elements of the modern
part of the city (Soffer and Stern 1986, 102-103).
The railway constitutes an additional factor in the differentiation of the port city from
the inland city. In the model of the inland city, the railroad came just outside the old
city where the separation process began between the old city and the new. In the port
cities, the railroad penetrated to the old city to reach the port. The formation of
industrial zone around the railroad constituted a similar case with the inland cities
and the port cities.
The differentiation in the residential districts was a similar case in both the inland
and the port cities but the formation of the differentiation differed as can be traced by
the Figure 1.7 and Figure 1.8. In the model of the inland cities the lower class
continued to reside in and around the old city center while the richer population
moved to the new developing areas. But in the model of the port cities the city center
resides a mixed population. But around the city center a differentiation can be
observed. To give the example of Beirut the eastern part around the city center was
dominated by lower class while the western part was dominated by the middle and
upper classes and the southern parts were existed as the poorer parts.
The cosmopolitan population was also a common phenomenon to all active port
cities in the Middle East and this affects the model. The establishment of a second
large commercial center in the port cities was the result of the development of middle
to upper-class neighborhoods in one side of the city with a foreign population. The
establishment of Hamra district in Beirut was the outcome of this foreign population
settled by the establishment of the American University of Beirut in the district
which would be discussed in detail in the following chapters.
Source: Soffer and Stern 1986, 104.
Figure 1.9 Land-Use Map of Beirut.
Beirut constitutes a very good example for the port city model as the old city was
located on a coastal plain and the port developed with the penetration into the old
city completely. The direction of the railroad, the development of the industrial
zones, the cosmopolitan character of the city, the establishment of the new
commercial center, the creation of recreational areas which were the general
characteristics of the Middle Eastern port city could be easily observed by the
thematically prepared map of Beirut (Figure 1.9).
28
29
CHAPTER 2
2. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND
URBAN TRANSFORMATION
2.1 Political and Administrative Changes
Political and administrative change in the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth
century is an extensive subject area that needs a very detailed study under this title.
The factors that would take place in this section were selected according to their
effects on the formation and transformation of urban space to keep the subject in
context. The increasing European effect and control in every field of the Empire and
the call of Tanzimat Reforms by the government to strengthen its power constitutes
the first part of this section. The rules and regulations concerning the urban life were
also selected in the second part. In the third part the formation of municipalities
which was a major outcome of the changes in the administrative system with the
effects of both European powers and the Tanzimat reformers would be discussed.
Although the government tried to apply the rules and regulations in the cities, the
European effect became stronger in the Balkans and in the Middle East compared to
Anatolia. As the case study of the port city of Beirut is selected, the further effect of
European impact, colonialism which is the case especially in the Middle Eastern
region of the empire and the colonial rules in the transformation of the cities would
be included in the last part of this section to give the political and administrative
situation in the cities of the region.
30
2.1.1 Increasing European Influence and Tanzimat Reforms
The reforms of the Tanzimat period started with the effects of the European countries
and the local forces. The Ottoman Empire joined the open market in the nineteenth
century that the European countries wanted to acquire the most advantage of the
trade in the open market. So with the trade agreements made in the second quarter of
the nineteenth century the European countries started to take the advantages. They
also wanted to make the advantages permanent that they encouraged and guided the
reform process that the Ottoman Empire would start to make during the same period.
The local forces also stimulated the reform process that rebellions continuing since
the beginning of the nineteenth century especially in the distant parts of the empire
made the government apply new rules and regulations to strengthen the
administrative power of the empire by increasing the power of the central
government offices over local powers.
As a result of these factors, Tanzimat Period started with the edict issued in the park
of Gülhane in İstanbul in November 1839 and therefore known as the Hatt-i Şerif of
Gülhane. It was the first edict of what is known collectively as Tanzimat Reforms.
There were series of laws prepared and declared between the years 1839 and 1876
which were intended to strengthen the Ottoman imperial administration in the whole
country. According to Shaw, the Tanzimat contained the conservative desire for
effective centralized control (Shaw 1992, 51). Tanzimat Reforms covers rules and
regulations for almost every segment of the social arena. The rules and regulations
which had effects on the urban transformation would constitute the subject of the title
of Tanzimat Reforms in this study.
31
The main changes introduced by the Tanzimat Reforms were mainly the security of
life, honor and property of Ottoman subjects. These can be evaluated as, equality
among all subjects by removing the Muslim, non-Muslim differentiation, recognition
of private ownership, introduction of secular rights system by accepting a judiciary
mechanism apart from the shariah order, and the introduction of a western rights
system with the emergence of the law concept. There were also the application of the
new systems of land tenure and the application of new administrative system with the
new institutions.
Although Ottoman government tried to strengthen its power, western influences and
some decisions taken by the reforms strengthen another group as well. The non-
Muslim population of the empire gained an equality in the society and in addition to
the equality they gained an advantage with the increasing interests of the European
powers in the trade system of the empire. Privileges were given to the non-Muslim
population that the economic structure became dependent on them, especially in the
port cities of the empire. They used their cultural similarities with the European
merchants and their language to communicate with the local merchants that they
became agents of the foreign firms contracting business in the cities.
As the Ottoman government became weaker and European influence in the empire
became stronger, the relative status of the non-Muslim communities in the empire
began to shift. The Muslims began to lose their power that great majority of the
population no longer had the advantage of either being the majority or being member
of the official religion. Christians, Jews and other subjects of the empire became
protected people and they began to gain the upper status. Muslims lost their status
while non-Muslims and foreigners gained power with the changes. The Islahat
Decree issued in 1856 was the second stage of the Tanzimat Reforms that by this
decree more privileges were given to foreigners and the non-Muslims in the empire.
32
The Düyun-u Umumiye Administration, which was established by the Europeans to
control Ottoman finances in 1881, was the most important element of the foreign
control. The Ottoman Bank which was also established earlier has served as the
financial institution of Düyun-u Umumiye (Kasaba 1994, 18-19 and Aktüre 1981,
71-72). Large infra-structure investments, development of communication and
transportation systems were made in the empire after this period through these
organizations.
In addition to the formation of a new bureaucracy and extension of military and civil
bureaucracy in the cities, to strengthen the central power in the empire other acts
have also been taken. For the process of increasing central control with the
developing new communication and transportation infrastructure, expansion of
western supported educational institutions outside İstanbul have also contributed to
the opening up of the empire to the foreign control. Ottoman desire for efficient
government and the desire of the European Powers to stay in control of diplomatic
and territorial decision making, Tanzimat Reformers developed more changes other
than administrative changes.
Reform and Westernization have been the key words in explaining policies adopted
in the Tanzimat period. Both words presuppose the existence of reliable, established
institutional models with the approval of European social, political and economic
experience. By the nineteenth century, Ottoman elite agreed on the need to put the
empire into order with the idea of creating an ideal society through regulations and
institutions (Shaw 1992, 51).
33
2.1.2 Regulations and Laws of the Tanzimat Era Related to Urban
Transformation
The first Ebniye (buildings) Regulation was enacted in 1848 and one year after
another Ebniye Regulation was issued. There was also the Ebniye Manifest between
the two regulations in 1848 that it was important for declaring the views of Ebniye
Council relating to the actual quality, degree of strength and durability of buildings.
The manifest was important because it contained the detailed technical information
on the rules that should be paid attention during the construction and on the type of
material that should be used. It is also important that after this manifest no other
regulation was published in this detail. Both the Regulations and the Manifest were
issued only for İstanbul. The first regulation to be implemented in all the cities of the
Empire was issued fifteen years later. The Turuk and Ebniye Regulation was enacted
in 1864 that it had a much wider content than the previous ones. While the basic
concern in issuing the first Ebniye regulation was for the prevention of fires, in the
Turuk (streets) and Ebniye Regulation there were efforts to create an urban form.
The Turuk and Ebniye Regulation remained in effect without any changes for nearly
twenty years (Selman 1982, 3, 76).
The aim of these regulations and the law was to find solutions to the problems of the
nineteenth century Ottoman city and laws were issued according to the problems of
orientation and width of the streets, settlement problems of increasing urban
population and the destructing fires in the cities.
The height of the buildings was specified by the Turuk and Ebniye Regulations. Any
projecting parts to the street like stairs, fences and basement windows were
prohibited and the window cornices and thresholds were specified by this regulation.
The street widths were also determined. It was stated that for the construction in
gardens and on vacant land and for establishment of new quarters, maps were
34
prepared according to the regulation principles of street widths and of building
heights. After the Turuk and Ebniye Regulations the 1882 Ebniye Law was enacted
(Tekeli 1985, 886-887) by the expansion of municipalities in the entire Empire and
their taking over the duty of urban development activities with the 1877 Province
Municipality Law. An important change introduced by this regulation is that
implementation and supervision activities would be carried out by local
administrations instead of the central administrations (Selman 1982, 87-88).
The 1882 Ebniye Rule was more comprehensive than the preceding regulations. The
main issues were the widening of the roads and making new plans for the burnt down
areas. It was suggesting the municipalities to prepare maps showing the roads that
would be opened and their environs and publish them to the public for the burnt
down areas. Construction of new cul-de-sacs were strictly prohibited, the widths of
the roads were ranked into five categories, the heights of the buildings, the exterior
properties of the buildings and the precautions for the fire were mentioned in Ebniye
Rules. The rules were implemented especially and widely in İstanbul but it was
declared for the whole country and some examples of the regulations could be found
in other cities of the empire as well (Tekeli 1985, 887).
The ideal administrative system in the minds of Ottoman notables during Tanzimat
era has only partially applied in İstanbul while in the districts far from the capital the
local traditional administrative systems were continued to be applied (Gerber 1994,
84, 134-137). This differentiation between the center and the cities apart from the
center was also seen in the urban planning activities and processes. Especially the
first years of planning activities in the Western sense of planning, the central
administration in İstanbul did not even consider making plans for the cities other than
İstanbul. The urban planning regulations accepted for İstanbul were considered to be
applied for the other cities of the empire not until Turuk and Ebniye Regulation
(Uluengin and Turan 2005, 354).
35
The regulations were firstly about the renewal of existing urban tissue. The renewal
activities were generally due to the natural artifacts like fires or earthquakes, that the
administrators who were in favor of renewal activities were held responsible for the
fires in the old city centers. The regulations were secondly about the duties of the
local administrators and municipalities who were in charge for the renewal of the
urban area and the infrastructure. In the application of urban renewal programs the
central Ottoman government, its local administrators, European residents and their
consuls, the businessmen who were in relation with the west especially the non-
Muslim merchants were in close relation about the application of new reforms in the
cities. The renewal could have been faster if the economic opportunities were more
abundant and the natural disasters happened more often. The method of the urban
renewal which was the application of projects part by part in the necessary areas,
resulted in the lack of an overall urban plan during the empire (Yerasimos 2006, 176-
177).
One of the most important laws of the Tanzimat period was the 1858 Land Code. It
contains the concept of “ownership” that came with the Tanzimat Reforms. Private
ownership of land was allowed by this law and this resulted in the dissolution of the
land regime on which the Ottoman order was based. As a consequence of the Land
Code the recognition of the right for foreigners to own land came up after ten years.
According to Islamic Law foreigners do not have the right to own land in the lands of
the Ottoman Empire. This right was not given to foreigners in the 1858 Land Code at
first but the European powers wanted to own land to make investments so the right
was finally given in 1869 (Aktüre 1981, 41).
The Law of İstimlak (Legal Expropriation) enacted in 1878 also stimulated the
private ownership that accepted the existence of private ownership and stated the
rules accordingly (Selman 1982, 32).
36
The owners of property became the members of the rising new classes. The new
relationships and new organizations brought about by these new classes had their
effects on the urban forms. With the recognition of private ownership new demands
of these classes emerged in the urban form. Functions for pawning and insurance
brought need for cadastral order for the recording system of ownership. Among other
needs this need required the establishment of a new organization such as the
municipalities.
2.1.3 Establishment of Municipalities
According to Yerasimos the application of the new models of urban planning in the
Mediterranean was just a part of the westernization process in the Ottoman Empire
(Yerasimos 2006, 167-168, 170). Ottoman cities evolved according to the European
models starting with the Tanzimat reforms in two directions. The first direction was
with the central and local administrators and the second one was with the services of
the municipalities. The institutions in the first place were the primary institutions of
the Ottoman government in the westernization process as the government wanted to
use its own officials. The municipalities were taken into the process by the forces of
the foreign officials and the local non-Muslim merchants who wanted to live in a
peaceful environment with their rights to decide in the area they were living. The
financial opportunities were given to the local administrators more than the
opportunities given to municipalities with the purpose of making the local
administrators more powerful in the decision making and implementation process.
The municipalities were left without financial privileges that they only could make
the services of lightning, garbage disposal and pavement works. The municipalities
survived in the cities mostly for public works. But on the other hand changing of the
governors of the provinces once a year, prevented the plan of the central government
of gaining more power. In the Middle East, with the European intervention, the cities
faced a change in the administrative positions of the city and the decisions of the
37
municipalities were affected with new European staff appointed in important
positions (Yerasimos 2006, 182-183).
The first municipality was established in İstanbul in 1857 and the second one was
established in Tunis after a few months in 1858. There were establishment efforts in
Alexandria in the same era but the regular municipality was established in 1882 by
the support of English administrators. The municipality of Beirut was established in
1863 in the name of Meclis al-Baladi, of Damascus in 1864, of Cairo in 1867 and the
municipality of İzmir was established in 1868 (Yerasimos 2006, 175-181). The
examples were given because the first acts were taken especially in the port cities. In
these port cities basic needs of the foreign merchants were not met by the existing
institutions. Quarantines and hotels were especially needed to have the adequate
sanitary conditions and also new transportation systems were needed. So the
institution of municipality taking charge of these needs was established firstly in the
port cities (Ortaylı 2000, 123).
Beirut also had one of the earliest experiences of establishing a municipality. After
1860 civil war, the Ottoman Central government paid more attention to Lebanon and
in 1863 the municipality was established under the name Meclis el-Baladi. In 1870 a
more organized form of the municipality was created. The materials used for
construction were not very apt to fires in Beirut as in the other cities of the Empire so
the city did not face such disasters (Yerasimos 2006, 179-180). The city had
elections and had numerous majors and municipalities functioned in the daily
services like public health and sanitation, maintenance of order and traffic control,
market control and fire fighting precautions besides urban land control for street
building. From 1868 till 1897 Beirut had five appointed mayors (Shareef 1998, 57-
64, 80-104).
38
The urban improvements seen in İzmir has started in July 1845 when the Armenian
quarter burned down, two engineers were sent from İstanbul to make a plan for İzmir
in 1856. This act was also the first after the 1848 Ebniye Regulations that required a
plan after a fire before the first applications in İstanbul. The building of the wharves
started in 1867 and continued till August 1875. During the construction activities, the
French and English investors and the foreign merchants of the city asked for
establishing a municipality from the central government in İstanbul. The request was
taken into consideration with regard of the ratio and the importance of the foreign
population of İzmir. In November 1867 the request was accepted and decided that
the foreign population would also take duties in the newly built municipality and the
written documents would be in both Turkish and French. Under these circumstances
the municipality of İzmir was established in September 1868 (Shareef 1998, 179).
2.1.4 Colonialism in the Middle East
According to Reimer the European relationship to the Ottoman Empire was an
instance of semi-colonialism, a term that suggests the vitality of indigenous
administration, trade, and production, as well as the undeniable reality of European
imposes (Reimer 1991, 135-136). The guarantees given to European countries for
their investments in the empire started the semi-colonialization period of the
Ottoman Empire which immediately resulted in the infrastructure investments.
The situation in the Middle East continued farther to become colonization of the
area. The colonization of the Middle East by the European powers in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries brought the region under strong political and
economic influence of Europe, more so than in other parts of the empire. The
colonial rulers controlled the economies of these areas. In this period the physical
features as well as social structures of the urban centers came under the influence of
the colonial powers.
39
By the beginning of the nineteenth century the various parts of the Middle East were
integrated into the international network of trade and finance. This integration caused
the immigration of European businessmen and technicians, the investment of foreign
capital, the development of mechanical transport, and the shift from the existing type
of agriculture to cash crop agriculture. Foreign competition resulted in the ruin of the
handicrafts. All these events marked effects on the location, size and structure of
Middle Eastern towns. Issawi puts the situation that; the economy began to be
oriented outwards, toward the export of the primary products of the region that
transport systems was developed accordingly, with railway lines and steamboat
services leading to the coasts, and that the alignment of the main towns shifted to the
coastal areas as a result. The growth of these coastal areas was also stimulated by the
immigration of hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen, Spaniards and Italians who
came to constitute either a majority or a very large minority of their inhabitants in the
cities to gain the relevant power (Issawi 1969, 108-109).
2.2 Socio-Economic Changes
Socio-economic changes in the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century is an
extensive study area that to keep the subject related to the transformation of Ottoman
port cities, the context of this section would cover selected subtitles that has effects
on the changing urban hierarchy in the regional level and on the changing urban
form.
During the nineteenth century the empire became more and more exposed to
European influences. Europe was already industrialized and searching for new
markets by the beginning of the century. After 1740 the capitulations and especially
after the 1838 Anglo-Ottoman Trade Agreement, the Ottoman Empire was forced to
become an open market where European goods were bought and sold freely with low
customs-duties. In many Ottoman cities, the production structure was increasingly
40
coming under the influence of western goods. The Ottoman cities especially the
Anatolian and Middle Eastern cities became centers providing European markets
with raw materials. The immediate consequence of this was a rapid decline of
production in the cities.
2.2.1 Anglo-Ottoman Trade Agreements
The privileges given to European countries, known as capitulations, remained until
World War I, but their functions changed during the nineteenth century. Privileges
turned into rights as Western influence grew and Ottoman power declined.
Commercial treaties between the empire and European countries in 1838, Anglo-
Ottoman Trade Agreement, opened up the empire to European manufactured goods
by regularizing customs-duties on imported, exported and transit goods, allowing
European merchants to purchase goods anywhere in the empire. These treaties were
detrimental to local manufacturers and to centers of local production. But on the
other hand cities which became centers of trade with the European countries
benefited from these treaties.
The first important treatment of this process was signed with England in 1838. As
England was trying to include Ottoman Empire into the foreign market, this
treatment started the process. Treaties in similar content were signed with other
European states following England. The first of these treaties was signed with
France. France was followed with the citizens of Löbeck, Bremen and Hamburg and
Sardinis in 1839, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Prussia in 1840 and
Denmark and Toscana in 1841 (Cem 1974, 548-550).
European merchants gained many rights and advantages that they became free from
customs-duty anywhere in the empire with this agreement while local merchants
41
were still paying duties reaching from 12% to 50% in the interior customs for
transferring their goods from one city to another (Çadırcı 1991, 78). In this unfair
competition European goods penetrated into the local market. Till the middle of the
nineteenth century almost every commodity was provided inside the empire while
after the agreement, many commodities started to be imported. By the second half of
the nineteenth century the local market became full of European goods while the
local products exist only with expensive rates that the demand for local products
declined. With the decreasing demand the supply of raw materials also declined. The
local production activities the handicrafts became extinct. By the privileges given to
European merchants not only the goods, the European shopkeepers also penetrated
into the cities that they opened many shops in almost every city throughout the
empire (Aktüre 1985, 892).
The effects of Anglo-Ottoman Trade Agreement have also changed the social
structure in the cities, especially in the trade centers. Main trade activity in the cities
were held mainly by the Muslim merchants before the increase of imports but then
the non-Muslim merchants gained the dominant position in trade by using their
advantage to cooperate with the European merchants while easily communicating
with the local population.
Increase in the trade of imported goods and the changing economic structure of the
cities had two-sided effects on the cities of the empire. The local production centers
were affected negatively while the port cities were affected positively in the
economic sense. The local production centers lost their importance as trade centers
and the new trade centers emerged which was in close relation with the European
countries that would change the settlement hierarchy in the empire.
42
2.2.2 Fall of Traditional Productions Centers
During the nineteenth century, developing industry in Europe raised the demand for
raw materials in the European production centers. They searched for these raw
materials that the supplies of the Ottoman Empire seemed useful and available for
them. The two-sided transportation also stimulated the achievement of the raw
materials from the lands of the Ottoman Empire. The transportation was two-sided
because by the advantages given to the European merchants by the agreements, the
commodities started to come to the ports of the Empire while on the other hand the
empty ships were filled with raw materials necessary for further productions. So the
raw materials of the main productions were transferred to international markets
instead of interior markets. The interior flow of raw materials changed with this
increasing European demand which lead to a change in the production system of
Ottoman cities (Aktüre 1985, 891). The opening of the resources of the empire to
western markets and the decline of industry transformed the inland cities to the
extent that most of the Anatolian cities lost their specialized production activities and
their handicrafts.
The decline in handicrafts continued until the First World War in the Middle East.
But Issawi gives some cities in the territory of Ottoman Empire including; İstanbul,
Bursa, Salonica, İzmir, Ankara, Tokat, Aleppo, Damascus, Baghdad, Mosul and
Cairo that with an elaborate division of labor, each specializing in one particular
process, the cities continued to contain hundreds of thousands of handicraftsmen,
who supplied some of the region’s consumption of manufactured goods (Issawi
1980, 469).
While the local production centers continued their productions in a limited way they
were badly affected by the mass transportation of European goods that the factories
in Europe were producing goods more cheaply than the traditional producers in the
43
Ottoman Empire. The transportation costs did not even cause an increase in the total
costs by the development of steamships in the 1830s. The new ships brought a
reduction in transportation rates that continued almost until the end of the century
(Issawi 1980, 470). The effects of treaties of Anglo-Ottoman Trade Agreement
between the Ottoman and the European governments should be added to the reasons
for the reduction in transportation rates that treaties reduced the import duties to very
low levels and sometimes cancelled the duties and opened up the Ottoman and
Middle Eastern market. As a result in the Ottoman Empire, internal duties paid by
local producers remained much higher than import and other duties paid by
foreigners.
These treaties and the changing type of trade had negative effects on the local
productions that Issawi gives the devastating effects on the textile industry which
was made especially in the inland settlements that in 1845 a French consul reported
that the number of looms in Aleppo fallen to 1.500 and in Damascus to 1.000 while
the total of looms of Aleppo and Damascus were 12.000 before. For the city of Bursa
a similar comparison is also available that in 1843 some 20.000 pieces of cloth were
produced but by 1863 the amount decreased to 3.000 (Issawi 1980, 470). The decline
of the handicrafts also slowed down the growth of these towns, Aleppo, Damascus
and Bursa and besides these towns Issawi gives Baghdad, Cairo, Amasya and
Diyarbakır as the declining traditional production centers (Issawi 1966, 41-59).
The urban hierarchy has changed by the changing commercial relations and trade
routes in the nineteenth century. The more urbanized areas were the inland areas of
the empire in the sixteenth century while the coastal towns had less important
positions in the urban hierarchy. İstanbul was the main gathering point of
commercial activities. All the routes were leading to İstanbul. But by the nineteenth
century the changing relations with the European countries, more interdependency to
the western trade relations changed this urban hierarchy. The traditional production
44
centers in the urban hierarchy fell to lower levels while some of the existing port
cities started to rise and also some new port cities arose by the changing trade and
settlement system.
2.2.3 Rise of Port Cities
Throughout history, most of the Middle East has been highly urbanized; center of
gravity has been the interior regions except the eras of the Western influence. Firstly
during the Greco-Roman times from 300 B.C. to 600 A.D. and secondly the times of
European dominance in the region from 1800 to 1920s the urban centers moved to
the coastal areas (Issawi 1969, 102). Middle East entered the nineteenth century with
a large population of town dwellers and an accumulation of this population in the
towns of interior regions but by the end of the century an extensive urban growth and
a population increase in the coastal cities was observed. Inland towns such as Cairo,
Damascus and Jerusalem deteriorated, while seaports such as Alexandria, Antioch,
and Beirut flourished (İbrahim 1975, 32).
The growth of the port cities was related with the new international trade routes that
the industrial revolution drew. Technological revolution in Europe, the growth of the
Mediterranean trade, the advent of steamships and improved communications with
the west affected the growth of seaports. The port cities became points of collection
of commodities transported by railway system from the hinterland and also from the
smaller ports. This transportation structure necessitated the formation of big harbor
cities such as İstanbul, İzmir, Selanik, İskenderun, Beirut and Alexandria. İzmir on
the Anatolian shores and Beirut in the Middle Eastern shores became one of the
growing centers of the Eastern Mediterranean. Western influence penetrated into
these cities deeper in Beirut than any other cities in Syria and Lebanon and İzmir
than any other cities Anatolia except İstanbul.
45
The growth of some seaports was partly achieved at the expense of the other towns.
Cairo’s trade was partly diverted to Alexandria and Port Said. Similarly Beirut took
over much business formerly transacted in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in such
small ports as Saida (Issawi 1969, 110).
In the nineteenth century the main port cities and their hinterlands were divided
among the imperialist powers. It was a typical formation that all the port cities were
connected to their hinterlands by railways constructed by foreign firms. By the
construction of the railway systems the port cities became a changing point of system
of transportation and the control of the hinterland also turned to the foreign
domination instead of Ottoman rule (Tekeli 1985, 879-880). These foreign firms and
their governments gained advantage by the construction and administration of these
railways that they became highly related with the administrative powers in the
region.
2.3 Spatial Changes in Cities
Industrialization in Europe brought the growth and change in cities by the increasing
migration which led to urbanization and planning problems. Order, health and beauty
were the main questions in the nineteenth century urban issue. Grid iron plans with
wide boulevards and monumental public squares were applied to Mediterranean
cities during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The application of the new
model was not just the outcome of the increasing European dominance in the
Mediterranean but also the result of the Ottoman reforms during Tanzimat.
In order to answer the new facts introduced by the European countries, the Ottoman
Empire made and published urban reforms within the Tanzimat Reforms. The
regulations and laws enacted in the nineteenth century signaled the beginning of the
46
change in the physical appearance of the capital İstanbul and the other cities
according to the European model. There was reorganization of the streets in straight
forms, widening of the streets, expropriation of lands for public use, reorganization
of city administration and the provisioning of cities with various new services.
During the nineteenth century urban population rose, trade activities increased, the
transportation facilities were developed and urban administrative and municipal
activities increased with urbanization. Cities were transformed due to the
modernization acts undertaken by their governors. Reorganization of the urban space
came out with construction activities in the cities which will constitute the subject of
this section.
2.3.1 Creation of a New City Center
In the nineteenth century, the new trade relations created a new city center with
different functions than the traditional center in the cities. The traditional center was
consisted mainly of the bedesten and the market area near the bedesten but the
existing area became insufficient for the new functions in the city. So a dual system
of city center was created. Tekeli gives four reasons for the creation of this dual
system (Tekeli 1985, 881). First reason was the increasing need for the
communication of the city with its hinterland and with the world. So in this new
context the city was communicating through railway with its hinterland and through
steamships with the world. The communication ways were not just under the control
of the military or high administrators that they were open systems. So the
construction activities were held for these systems. This means that there were new
railway stations, new ports and new post offices built in the new city center. The
relation with the environs was not just by through these buildings, so other new
constructions were held. Warehouses for the transported goods and hotels for the
47
people were constructed and the caravanserais and the khans of the traditional system
of the sixteenth century transformed into stations, warehouses and hotels.
The second reason Tekeli gives for creating a new city center with new functions
was because of the need of new financial facilities as the Ottoman Empire was more
open to foreign commercial activities and foreign control in trade than before. New
financial services were brought by the foreigners and many banks were established in
the cities. The competition of the firms made the firms to construct their related
banks on the same district of the city. Following the establishments of the banks new
khans were constructed around the same district to conduct business more easily. So
the main financial activity left the traditional bedesten and the market (Tekeli 1985,
881).
A new transportation system based on railroads and steamships in place of longdistance
caravans and the caravanserais came into existence. The relationship of the
cities with the outside has started to make through these new systems. New systems
created new functions in the cities like the warehouses and railway stations. The
change in the type of relations did not only affect the construction of new buildings
for the new functions, it also had effects on the usage of the existing buildings,
especially the khans. The khans at which traveling merchants carrying their products
made stops were the places serving like a hotel and a warehouse where caravan
animals were put before the nineteenth century. With the changing transportation
system in the nineteenth century the khans changed their functions with the changing
type of the merchants. Traveling merchants turned into permanent businessmen in
the cities. The khans lost their previous functions and appeared with new functions
and new architectures. The new functions of the buildings were the administration,
selling and the maintenance of commodities and generally specialized in various
ones. The new khans were built without courtyard with more offices and storages.
The old function of accommodation passes to the newly built hotels. The mass
48
storage function has passed to the warehouses built by the railway stations and the
ports. The khans with their new functions, the hotels and the warehouses constituted
a new city center specialized in trade especially in the port cities (Kıray 1998, 40-
42).
The third reason for creating a new city center was for the need of new
administrative buildings brought by Tanzimat Reforms. As the administrations of the
cities were transformed from the military organizations to appointed governors new
administrative buildings were constructed in the new city centers (Tekeli 1985, 881).
The technological change, together with the change in administration had its
influence on the establishment of the centralized administrative system in the
Ottoman Empire. New technologies in especially the transportation and
communication systems were imported very fast for the provision of central control.
Communication was no longer in the control of the military class, and it was opened
to the whole society. Postal system was established, and the telegraph network
became one of the most important technical devices of the centralized administration
(Ortaylı 1974, 3-4).
A new bureaucracy appeared with the improved urban administrative and municipal
activities in the cities and with this improvement new administrative centers were
needed apart from the traditional centers of the cities (Aktüre 1985, 888).
Government offices, military barracks, clock towers, and various administrative
buildings were built in the cities and even in small towns to meet the needs of the
new administrative system and as a part of the modernization program.
The fourth and the final factor for creating a new city center has come with the
foreign influence in the cities. As the foreign influence was increasing, their habits
49
also penetrated in the cities. The entertainment facilities such as theatres, cafes and
shops for luxury goods were established in the new city centers (Tekeli 1985, 881).
The new center and the new facilities did not make the traditional center obsolete. A
dual system has occurred both in the spatial formation and in the society level. New
functions of a new center merged with the ones of the old center and lead to the main
residential districts of foreign populations and the districts of non-Muslims. In
İstanbul it was seen between Galata and Pera, in İzmir this system can be seen in
Punta area (Tekeli 1985, 881).
2.3.2 Changing Street System
The physical structure of the cities also changed. The traditional street systems of the
cities were narrow main streets and alleys ending with the cul-de-sacs in the
residential areas. There were changes in the street systems with the changing
transportation tools in the city. The old system was not relevant for the new relations
and transportation systems occurring in the cities. By the end of the nineteenth
century the railway stations and the improved docks were the structures that were
added to the existing city. As these railways and the steamships gained importance,
wide street systems became necessary in the cities.
Through the reorganization of the urban transportation systems the widening of the
streets, the construction of roads connecting the city center to the new residential
areas, construction of highways between the cities and construction of tramways
were the primary concerns of every Ottoman governor, though it was not an easy
task to change the old urban structure. But the foreign firms set up firms of tramways
for mass transportation in the cities by the end of the century.
50
According to Tekeli for the changes in the city structure the use of horse-drawn cars
also played a very important role that the narrow cul-de-sacs and high density city
center was not useful for these new cars. Wider streets became necessary. This
necessity provided new settlement areas outside the city walls or outside the dense
area (Tekeli 1985, 882).
2.3.3 Creation of New Residential Areas
The construction of new street in the cities made possible the construction of new
suburbs around the cities. Cities were growing and extending with spatial
differentiation of the business areas and the residential areas. So the mobility in the
cities increased that the traditional narrow streets and the cul-de-sacs became
insufficient.
The city of the nineteenth century integrated with its environs by the increasing
transportation alternatives and functions. Suburbs started to be established firstly by
the rich population in big gardens or on the shore as their summer residences (Tekeli
1985, 883).
The rich families residing in the high dense areas of the cities wanted to use the new
horse-drawn cars but the spatial difficulties prevented them. So the new settlement
areas with wider streets were occupied with these rich families of the cities. The
houses were in big gardens with fine furnishings that new high status suburbs were
formed (Aktüre 1985, 899). The land for these new suburbs was provided by the
Land Reform in 1858. According to this new land reform the agricultural land
around the city was recognized by private ownerships and the cities expanded
through the plains around the cities. The plains and the new type of constructions
51
with wide streets instead of narrow cul-de-sacs, the new type of transportation spread
easily in the newly built areas (Tekeli 1985, 882).
2.3.4 Other Construction Activities
In the traditional city centers the urban transformation has also occurred. Because of
the fires the areas burnt down as most of the buildings were wooden buildings the
areas became vast. New constructions were built mainly of stone and brick in the
nineteenth century to avoid the fires. This situation led the cities to transform their
old traditional styles into new styles. The green areas existing in the cities before the
nineteenth century served as the fruit and vegetable gardens for the residents. The
distribution and the function of the green areas have changed in the nineteenth
century with the urban transformation. Some turned into plots for new residential
constructions and some turned into public parks in the city. The old cemeteries
existing in the old city also turned into public parks by the municipalities. The
increasing population led to the insufficiency of the existing sanitary and health
systems. Quarantines in the port cities and hospitals were built in the cities during the
nineteenth century. Around the cities another type of land use has also existed in the
nineteenth century. New factories and work plants were established around the cities
instead of inside the city. Although the main productive activity was still made in the
city there was a tendency to move out of the cities (Tekeli 1985, 882-883).
52
CHAPTER 3
3. BEIRUT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
3.1 Historical Overview of Beirut before the Nineteenth Century
Beirut is located on the northern end of a hilly site bordered to the north and west by
the Mediterranean and to the south and east by Mount Lebanon chain. It was a site
with geographic advantages. One was that the narrow coastal plain on which the city
was located was widest near Beirut; another was that its harbor was protected from
the winds.
This geography made the continuity of the town’s history since the fourteenth
century B.C. and for the town’s survival through so many ups and downs as a seaport
between Roman and modern times. The Mediterranean played its crucial role in the
Middle East under Rome and again in the nineteenth century after the industrial
revolution which shifted the patterns of trade toward Europe (Fawaz 1983, 8).
Between these two periods it was less important, for the Arab conquest and the
Ottoman rule moved the urban focus of the Middle East to the interior regions.
Exactly when Beirut was built is uncertain, but it was one of the oldest on the eastern
Mediterranean. There is also no certainty about the etymology of its ancient name
Biruta, which became Berytus in classical times and then Beirut and also spelled as
Bairut, Bayrut and Beyrut. It is almost accepted that the name is derived from the
Semitic word for “well” or “pit”, Akkadian burtu, Hebrew be’er, Arabic bi’r or
53
Canaanite word Beryte showing that there was abundance of water from wells, the
only means of maintaining the local water supply at least until Roman times
(Encyclopedia of Islam, 1137; Salaam 1970, 110; Fawaz 1983, 14).
Beirut’s history1 before the twelfth century B.C. is unknown. Sidon on the south and
Byblos on the north were more prominent settlements at that time and Beirut
developed first as a small Phoenician port of little commercial and strategic
importance.
With Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Syrian coast in 332 B.C., Beirut became
part of the Hellenistic world. In the Hellenistic period it was a medium-sized town of
no great importance, and not until the fifth century did it gain importance. The
reasons for its sudden growth are not clear. While excavations in the center of the
town reveal construction that could have had military uses they were most probably
the ruins of barracks and a military town. But the real role of Beirut under the
Romans and then under the Byzantines was cultural, as it became famous for its law
school. The school attracted students from all over the roman world. With this
prosperity the increase in population occurred and this increase was followed by the
construction of new public buildings like theaters, baths, a hippodrome and an
aqueduct system supplying the city with its first canals (Encyclopaedia of Islam,
1137; Fawaz 1983, 14).
By the mid-fourth century, most of Beirut’s population adopted the religion of
Christianity with its law students in great numbers and the city became the seat of a
bishop. As Christianity spread, so did the differences on matters of doctrine, ritual
and discipline. The controversies in Syria resulted in the establishment of a whole
range of Christian denominations. In Beirut and Lebanon these included the
1 The review of Beirut’s history from ancient times to the nineteenth century is mainly derived from
the following sources: Encyclopedia of Islam 1137-1138 and Fawaz 1983, 8-20.
54
Melchites, who accepted the doctrine of the two natures –human and divine- in the
one person of Christ formulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and the
Monophysites and Nestorians, who did not. When the division between the churches
of Rome and Constantinople occurred in 1054, the Melchites followed
Constantinople. The Monophysites like the Nestorians rejected the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon, and instead believed in the union between the divine nature of
Christ and the Human nature of Jesus. They became dominant in parts of Syria where
they belonged either to Jacobite, or Syrian Orthodox, to Armenian, or Gregorian. But
this group mainly assumed the name of their patron saint Maron, who died in around
410, and became known as Maronites. In the twelfth century they recognized papal
supremacy, but retained their own liturgy and priesthood (Fawaz 1983, 16).
In 511, an earthquake destroyed Beirut and reduced its population to a few thousand.
Efforts to restore the town were unsuccessful mainly because of political instability
of Byzantine and Persian imperial powers. Then in the name of Islam, the Arabs
from the Arabian Peninsula began in 633 a conquest, spreading Arab domination
from North Africa to Central Asia. Beirut was taken in 635 in the same year when
Damascus was also taken. Two Arab empires Umayyads (661-750) and the Abbasids
(750-1258) governed the Arab Empire and until 1110, Beirut remained under
Muslim Arab rule. Under Muslim domination a new era began for the city. The
Umayyads used Damascus as their capital and its proximity to Beirut benefited the
city. The commercial relations were restored with the interior and Beirut. The
Umayad caliph Mu’awiya brought populations from Persia to repopulate the city and
its surrounding area, partly as a preventive measure in case of Byzantine naval attack
(Encyclopedia of Islam, 1137; Hitti 1967, 244-245). As a result the structure of the
population of the city changed, Arabs replaced Byzantines. These changes increased
the number of local Muslims.
55
Muslims tolerated both Christians and Judaism but, as the Muslims moved in, many
Christian families left the coastal cities for Mount Lebanon, to the inner regions.
They established themselves as religious minorities and independent groups. Beirut,
however continued to be inhabited by Christians but the proportions declined in
favor of Muslims in the city which would turn opposite by the nineteenth century.
In the mid-eighth century, the Abbasids replaced the Umayyads and moved their
capital to Baghdad. This ended Syria’s preeminence and also affected Beirut.
Baghdad the capital of Abbasids, Cairo the capital of Fatimids and the lands of the
empires stretched to Syria, but Syria was divided under the control of various local
leaders. So by the time the Crusades, Syria was weak which would explain the
fortification walls built in this era in the city of Beirut. The first contact Beirut had
with the Crusaders occurred in 1099 and the Crusader possession lasted until 1291
when the Mamluks expanded their control over Syria. The Mamluks remained in
control until 1517. After an initial period of decline and anarchy caused by the
military and political changes of the period, Mamluks divided Syria into a number of
provinces. Beirut was made part of the Damascus province, but the city was in effect
under the military protection of chieftains of Southern Lebanon, the Buhturids of the
Gharb. These Buhturids were neither Sunni nor Christian, but Druze, the name given
to the descendants of the followers of the Fatimid Caliph. Beirut declined during the
Mamluk period with the economic fluctuations in the Mediterranean. Syria lost its
importance as a commercial center at the end of the thirteenth century but then
benefited from the revival of trade between Syria and the Venetians, Catalans and
Genoese in the late fourteenth century.
Some improvements were made in Beirut by the Druzes who ruled the city in the
name of the Mamluks, but they were modest. The fortifications were restored
especially along the coast and two towers were built. In addition some buildings
were constructed including a mosque, a bath, a khan, and a palace. The aqueduct was
56
repaired. The palace of Fakhr al-Din was built at the eastern end of the city which
would include the seraglio and the house of the local judge until the middle of the
nineteenth century. The population of Beirut in the Mamluk period is not known but
it is known that the composition of the population changed, becoming more Muslim.
The Mamluks fought against Crusaders, Mongols and other invaders.
Ottomans conquered Syria in 1516. They divided Syria into three provinces; Aleppo,
Damascus and Tripoli. In 1660 a fourth Vilayet of Sidon was created. Until the
nineteenth century the divisions did not change. In the nineteenth century, the
Ottomans made a number of administrative changes. In 1840, the Vilayet of Sidon
was enlarged and Beirut made its capital. In 1864, a Vilayet of Syria was formed out
of Sidon and Damascus and subdivided into five sancaks: Beirut, Acre, Tripoli,
Latakia, and Nablus. In 1888, a Vilayet of Beirut became the administrative capital
of the vilayet carrying its name (Salibi 1965, introduction).
For centuries, Beirut’s history was tied to the destinies of the great empires that
succeeded one another in the Middle East. As far the brief history of the region gave
the evidences for the diversity of the population in Beirut which would be one of the
major factors in the changing socio-economic relations in the city.
3.2 Socio-Economic Transformation of Beirut in the Nineteenth Century
3.2.1 Egyptian Occupation and Creation of a New Center
Muhammed Ali of Egypt (1805-1849), the strongest vassal in the Ottomans, who
tried to keep Greece in the Ottoman Empire, was given Crete for his efforts.
Muhammed Ali also demanded Syria and when Sultan refused his demand, he
decided to take both Palestine and Syria. He sent his son İbrahim Pasha to conquer
57
them. Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli soon fell under Egyptian control, and in July
1831 all of Syria was controlled by Muhammed Ali.
The establishment of Beirut as the capital of vilayet Sidon in 1832 during the
Egyptian occupation of Syria attracted consular representatives and foreign traders to
the city. It was between 1840 and 1860 that Beirut underwent the most important
changes that constituted the major changes in its history. Major changes and
developments like the low import duties applied to foreign merchants as the
consequence of Anglo-Ottoman trade agreement, the establishment of the Frenchcontrolled
Ottoman Imperial Bank in 1850, the building of the new wharf, and the
construction of the Beirut-Damascus road made Beirut accessible from the interior of
the region and made the city the trade center of the region. Becoming a center the
population of the city increased mainly by the migrations from the interior regions.
Maronites migrated from the mixed Druze districts in Mount Lebanon and the Greek
Orthodox from Damascus and Aleppo after the upheavals in 1860. By the
migrations, Beirut’s population rose from 10.000 to 80.000 in a very short period,
between 1840 and 1880.
Under Egyptian rule Beirut became the commercial and administrative center for the
coastal provinces. Once he made Beirut the provincial capital, European consulates
began to locate in the city. After 1830’s many consuls and assistants to the consuls
were appointed to Beirut that by the middle of the nineteenth century, the
consulships were highly institutionalized and they gained roles in the socio-political
decision making process in the city. The first of them, the French and the British
consulates were established in 1820. By the 1850s some other countries also
established their consulates in the city, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sardunia, Tuscany,
Spain, Naples, Holland, and Greece (Fawaz 1983, 26). Beirut became the unrivalled
port city of the coastal zone of Syria; the city became both the diplomatic capital city
of Syria and also economic focal point of the region.
58
The Egyptian authorities facilitated European trade in Beirut by the construction of
new warehouses and lodgings like they did in Alexandria. In the 1830s direct trade
with England grew rapidly (Issawi 1977, 93-94).
The changes in the political and administrative roles of Beirut introduced by the
Egyptians and continued by the Ottomans affected the city’s relation with the
hinterland. The alliance between İbrahim Pasha of Egypt and Emir Bashir II of
Mount Lebanon made Beirut strategically important and made the city a political
power base for Mount Lebanon. Beirut’s growing economic importance changed the
close relationship between Beirut and the Mount Lebanon to a dependency of the
latter to the former. Beirut became a port for Damascus. The Beirut-Damascus road,
built in 1858-1863 was the physical interpretation of the link between the cities
(Fawaz 1983, 122).
3.2.2 Reestablishment of Ottoman Rule and Changing Nature of Trade
Activities with the Impact of Foreign Market
The Egyptians remained until 1840 when British, Austrian and Prussians decided to
come to help the Ottoman administration to reestablish the Ottoman rule again in the
region. The reason for this decision lied in the maintaining the balance of power in
the region as Muhammed Ali was becoming a major power in the region extending
from Egypt to Syria, and planning to invade the Ottoman land of Anatolia. The
dissolution of the princedom of Mount Lebanon in 1842 also allowed the Ottoman
administration in Beirut and Damascus to gain more power over Mount Lebanon
than it had in the past (Fawaz 1983, 26).
Beirut prospered so much more than any of the other once famous Levantine ports –
Acre, Tyre, Sidon, and Tripoli – that for Beirut’s growth it was an example of the
59
relationship between politics and urbanization. When Egypt ruled in Syria and
Lebanon in the 1830s, Muhammed Ali decided to move the political center to Beirut,
for the first time European consulates were established in the city. After the
Egyptians departed in 1840, the Ottoman administration decided to maintain Beirut
as the center of the vilayet of Sidon and its political and administrative importance
increased. In 1888 the vilayet of Beirut was established that the city became a center
for all international and local political and economic affairs. Beirut was first of all a
commercial center but soon became an educational and cultural center and this
political and social function explains why the city was able to continue to grow even
in the twentieth century when shipping lost so much of its commercial importance
(Fawaz 1983, 122).
Beirut was relatively a minor city until the middle of the nineteenth century, when
new patterns of production and trade transformed it into a major commercial center
in the Eastern Mediterranean. The expansion of European dominated capitalist
economy in the region had impacts on the transformation of Beirut. Beirut’s
hinterland also had the impacts of the change that Mount Lebanon became a center
for silk production and an important supplier to the French textile industry. With the
growth of the silk trade and related facilities, a class of merchants emerged in Beirut.
These merchants were both European and local merchants. The importance of
Europeans in the political economy of the city increased by the time and Beirut
became not only a commercial center for Europeans but also became a center for
consular offices, educational institutions, and missionary organizations. The center of
commercial activities and the majority of population of Syria have moved from
interior regions to Beirut, from Mount Lebanon to Beirut and from other seaports to
Beirut (Nagel 2002, 718-719).
In the beginning of the nineteenth century for three decades silk production and trade
was the most important economic activity in Beirut and in the Mount Lebanon. By
60
the 1820s Beirut became the commercial center of Syria and Mount Lebanon that its
prosperity based largely on the silk industry. As the cultivation of silk expanded,
Beirut’s economy has also expanded. The city became a center for silk traders,
producers and entrepreneurs. The cultivation of silk tied the city more closely to the
nearby countryside and to Mount Lebanon (Fawaz 1983, 39).
According to the commercial report prepared by N. Moore, the British consul in
Beirut, in 16 November 1835 the rise of Beirut has been confirmed (Issawi, 1977,
93-94):
Beyrout till within the last few years almost unknown even by name in
England an entirely so as a mart for British manufacturers and colonial
produce, is now transformed from a third rate Arab town into a flourishing
commercial city – the residence of Europeans of various nations. It is the
shipping port of Damascus and of a considerable part of Syria and the market
for the sale of large quantities of English manufacturers and colonial
produce...
The population of Beyrout has so materially increased of late that a large part
of the inhabitants is compelled to reside without the walls. It has acquired
additional importance from its having recently been made the quarantine
station for the whole coast of Syria...
Issawi points out three main factors for the expansion in Beirut’s trade, first of which
was the favorable effects on both exports and imports of the Anglo-Turkish
Commercial Convention of 1838. Second factor was the development of steam
navigation and finally the expansion of silk production. Beirut remained the only port
between Alexandria and İzmir served by steamships for years that for example in
1844 the consul at Aleppo stated that no steamships called at Tarsus, Alexandretta,
Latakia, and Tripoli. Beirut became the coaling station of the coast by being the only
port that the steamships had called in (Issawi, 1977, 97).
61
The domination of steam ships in regular trade activities in Eastern Mediterranean
after 1830’s, accelerated the development of the port of Beirut. Beirut became the
only port to stay for a while between İzmir and Alexandria for almost ten years after
1830. This acceleration also continued by the British trade that Beirut became the
arrival point for the British goods which will be transferred to Syria, to Anatolia and
to Iran (Özveren 1994, 79).
The success of Beirut also lied in keeping the existing port cities away from the trade
and transportation networks in the short run and in the long run, in the balance of
trade that exports financed the imports. Tripoli and Sidon lost their chance to become
like Beirut, they become like peripheries of Beirut. In the short run, Beirut
maintained its status in the web of trade with the dependence of import and export
activities between the inland and the European cities on each other while Beirut
sustains its function in between. Trade activities were mainly on the silk and cotton
and exportation of raw materials from the inland parts of the country and import of
machinery for cotton and sugar, tea and coffee in return. French silk industry was
basically depended on Mediterranean production after the middle of the nineteenth
century and factories in Lyon got the required silk production from merchants of
Beirut in the case of extensive need for raw silk. By this way, most of the economic
activities based on silk production which were concentrated in Marseilles before,
were transferred to Beirut and its near environment (Özveren 1994, 84).
In the second half of the nineteenth century, British trade with Syria decreased
sharply. Until Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt, France was the leading trader in
Syria. But then British interest aroused by the factors of the increase in trade in Syria,
becoming a large market for British manufactured goods and source of raw materials
like cotton, grain, and wool besides also by being a transit route to Iraq and Iran.
Another inciting factor for British interest was the concerns for Muhammed Ali’s
intentions in the Levant. While both British government and traders had been against
62
Muhammed Ali’s system of monopoly he founded in Egypt, Beirut had benefited
from the Egyptian occupation of Syria and then from the expansion of British and
French commerce (Issawi 1977, 91-92).
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 was a turning point in the East
Mediterranean. Suez Canal affected the relative arrangement and hierarchy of the
different regions in periphery. Since France imported silk in greater and increasing
rate from China, Beirut lost its importance in silk production for Lyon and
Marseilles. Decreasing importance of the silk production in the city changed the
main functions taken in the city. Thus, Beirut in the beginning of the twentieth
century was very different from the one in the third quarter of the nineteenth century
because some of the old functions of the city, not only the economic ones, were
damaged due to the transformations caused by world economy. Beirut tried to find
new functions to replace the old ones and began to carry out new functions during a
long transformation period that until the beginning of the twentieth century their
results were not obvious. Firstly there has been a construction boom and a search for
new opportunities in the port activities in the city. In this respect building and
transformation of infrastructure became profitable investment areas for both foreign
and local investment. Moreover, investments made on silk production were replaced
by financial investments. Lastly and maybe the most important, meeting the amount
of food required for the growing population created new cereal production centers
extending to the inner parts of the country. As the new modes of investments and
productions became primary the old ones were abandoned. In brief, the changes in
Beirut showed that; the guarantee of being permanent depended on the ability of
change and transformation. Decreasing importance of silk production and silk trade
in Beirut was compensated by the increasing production of cereals in the country. By
the spread of goods imported from England to the inlands, the cereals from inlands
came to Beirut’s markets. Beirut’s merchants took part in this mutual trade. Also
Muslim merchants, being newly rich due to the specialization in cereals commerce in
inland, began to settle in Beirut to take part in this same mutual trade. In general the
63
activities related with silk production taken mostly by Christian merchants were
replaced by cereals and by Muslim merchants. By the increasing cereal production
and trade Beirut’s economic structure (Özveren 1994, 85-87).
In the nineteenth century, French religious influence penetrated into Syria and
Lebanon through the establishment of clerical schools, hospitals, asylums and
orphanages. In the beginning of the nineteenth century French diplomats and
consular officials aimed to influence the displeased Muslim and Christian Arabs in
Syria and Lebanon. Their object was to increase French popularity in the area by
making Syrians and Lebanese believe that France was trying to achieve political and
administrative autonomy for them in the Ottoman Empire. On the eve of the First
World War, the French financial investment in the Ottoman Empire was enormous.
French financiers controlled %62.9 of the Ottoman public debt. The Imperial
Ottoman Bank, which acted as the state bank, was owned entirely by French and
British capital. It controlled the tobacco monopoly, several utilities, and railway and
industrial issues and had other various business relations. Although its head office
was in İstanbul, its loan policies and other financial operations were determined from
Paris. French firms constructed and operated ports and warehouses in the
Mediterranean. At first the French predominance was lesser in other towns of the
Empire than İstanbul, including Beirut. French companies were also dealing with the
land and real estate (Shorrock 1970, 133-134).
Among the investments of the French firms in the Ottoman Empire the railroads
became the most important aspect in the long run. It was through railroads that
France maintained an influence in the Syrian provinces. In 1902 French firms were
operating five different railroad lines which were the Mudanya-Bursa line, the
Mersin-Adana line, the Beirut-Damascus-Muzeirib line, the Jaffa-Jerusalem line and
the İzmir-Kasaba line (Shorrock 1970, 133-134).
64
The last quarter of the nineteenth century was the period which port cities of the
world reached the highest point in the world economy. The differentiation of port
cities from inland cities became more evident with respect to the past. With the great
migrations to port cities and increasing populations, the welfare of these cities
increased. In the case of Beirut, the success of the city lied in its domination of the
inner areas and transforming them into peripheries where raw silk production was
specialized for the European market.
3.2.3 Population Changes Due to Regional and International Migration
The transformation of the city began in the mid nineteenth century by the rural
exodus. There were several factors for this transformation first of which was the
destruction of sources of income for the inhabitants of the interior region. The
collapse of the silk industry due to the competition by European industries which
resulted in the decline in the local markets for the handicrafts and artisan skills
resulted in the decline in economy of the mountain villages that they were dominated
by the traditional sources of income. The native economy did not survive by the
increasing penetration of European mass produced products. The second factor was
the massacres of 1860, resulted from the growing tensions between Maronites and
Druzes of Mount Lebanon. These tensions, besides the preceding factor become an
additional pressure on the rural economy and caused a further flow of rural migrants
into the city. The third factor was the French intervention on the Levantine coast.
Beirut was chosen as the administrative center of the French mandate over Syria and
Lebanon, and became the focal point of some intensive socio-economic and political
transformations. The residences of the consuls, the head-quarters of French,
American and British missions, and the growing centers of trade and services
attracted Europeans, Syrians and the people from the mountains villages of Beirut.
65
During the nineteenth century the population growth can not be wholly explained by
the silk trade as it was active in the first three decades of the nineteenth century that
the population growth was slow as compared with the second half of the century.
Beginning in the 1830s, Beirut began to expand in population. Christian merchants
and peasants came to Beirut from the Mountain when it became an administrative
center. The political power and stability in the city after 1860 made Beirut an asylum
after the civil war of 1860. Many of the refugees settled in the city permanently.
Beirut’s role as a refuge survived till the twentieth century. Syrian residents in Egypt
and Armenians in 1882 and 1900 respectively fled into the city (Fawaz 1983, 42-43).
Throughout the nineteenth century immigration to the city was continuous
phenomenon but the people involved were changed according to the political
situations. The common incentive the migrants were looking for was the security
which Beirut maintained to the populations and besides security the city’s economy
produced opportunities for the new comers. The religion was the common issue in
the case of migrants. Christians were the majority since they needed more protection
than Muslims did. So there were more Christians than Muslims who sought refuge in
Beirut and this changed the balance of the religious communities in the city in the
nineteenth century.
By the early 1860s Beirut’s population rose by the migrations from the mountain and
the inland as the upheavals took place. The migrants were the refugees. The city’s
population rose to 50.000 while its population was just 10.000 by 1830’s. Besides the
native population the foreign population also grew.
The only reason for the population increase was not sectarian struggles but also the
increasing trade activities in the city. In the port of Beirut, export increased from
3.995.645 French francs in 1825 to 45.056.500 francs in 1896 and import increased
from 5.907.873 francs in 1825 too 42.693.102 francs in 1896. The difference
between Beirut and its rivals increased very much with reference to economic
activities in the nineteenth century (Özveren 1994, 84). The economic expansion
which attracted the thousands of people can be shown by the increase in shipping and
trade flowing through the port of Beirut. The British ships entering the port were
carrying 4.200 tons of goods between 1844 and 1946 that rose to 29.833 tons by
1854-56 (Issawi 1977, 95). By the 1840s, steamships visited Beirut, and for years it
was the only port between İzmir and Alexandria to be used by European steamers.
For the same reason it was the only coaling station on the Syrian coast.
Source: Fawaz 1983, 31.
Figure 3.1 Population Change in Beirut
66
Source: Fawaz 1983, 49, 51.
Figure 3.2 Population Change in Beirut with Respect to Different Religious Groups
In the beginning of the nineteenth century the population was predominantly Muslim
like in the other coastal towns of Syria. Till the end of the century the population
remained mainly Sunni Muslim with Greek Orthodox minority. Although the
Christians were minority, during the nineteenth century the population of Christians
started to increase in the first half of the century and continued to increase then. The
numerical equality of Muslims and Christians came to an end after 1860. Between
1840 and 1865 the number of Muslims in Beirut doubled while the number of
Christians tripled. After 1860 Muslims constituted one third of the population and
Christians constituted the two thirds. The Christian population almost tripled in
Beirut between 1840s and 1860s and also tripled between 1861 and the end of the
century. In the beginning of the twentieth century the proportions did not change.
The major migrants of Sunnis, Greek Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Maronites
came from Mount Lebanon, the Syrian interior and other coastal cities (Fawaz 44,
48-49).
67
68
The population dynamics started to change after 1840s when the revolts began in the
Mountain against the Egyptian domination and after in 1860s when the civil war
broke. More people fled to Beirut that the city received refugees not just from the
Mountain but also all the troubled areas of the Syrian interior. Increasing political
power and stability in Beirut brought the city to the point where it provided enough
economic, social, and cultural opportunities to ensure its continued expansion while
there was no crisis around. Because Beirut’s population grew as a result of specific
events, the incoming population changed the city’s religious composition. As
sectarianism increased in the interior regions and Mount Lebanon in the middle
decades of the nineteenth century, a great number of Christians from the disturbed
areas came to Beirut. With the predominantly Christian migration, the number of the
Christian population over Muslims increased. This also meant that Christians
benefited more from the city’s expanding economic opportunities and this shifted the
distribution of wealth among Beirut’s religious communities.
According to Fawaz there was not accurate information about where the Muslim
population came from that the author assumes they came from Sunni populated areas
as the interior of Syria, the Syrian coast, and the parts of Biqa’ in Lebanon. Christian
migration started in 1810s from the vilayets of Damascus and Aleppo. The
deterioration of the political situation in Mount Lebanon in the 1840s had a more
direct and significant effect on the Christian migration to Beirut. During the same
period Christians from troubled areas moved to Beirut. Throughout 1860 Beirut
received refugees. Many of Christian refugees were traders and skilled artisans who
were rich families. Many of the Christians who left Aleppo in 1850 were prosperous.
The largest group of Christians came to Beirut in 1860 when Christians of all
divisions and all socio-economic levels had troubles in the Mount Lebanon and
Syria. Maronite refugees were the other major group in Beirut. All the Maronites
came from the mixed Druze districts of South Lebanon. The number of refugees rose
from 10.000 to 20.000 in a month in 1860. There were also Greek orthodox refugees
in Beirut. Beirut was filled with refugees at that time. Every public space, quarantine
69
center, religious headquarters, cemetery, and garden was filled with people. The
government rented khans and houses to the refugees and also ships in the harbor
became shelters for refugees (Fawaz 1983, 52-56, 59).
People came to Beirut for many reasons. First of all, they came for the search of new
opportunities in the city. In Beirut these opportunities were a career in trade, in
commerce or in government service, or an education. Secondly the political crisis
that the migrants were mainly composed of middle-class and wealthy people who
would otherwise not migrate at all unless there was a political crisis. That is why
political crisis often deprive the troubled area of craftsman, entrepreneurs,
professionals, and other productive group that the communities in which they settle
would benefit (Fawaz 1983, 5).
The reason for the small amount of migrations at the beginning of the century was
shown that the city was small and crowded that subject to diseases and inadequately
provided with municipal services. The role of the improved sanitation in the growth
of Beirut played an important role. The establishment of the only quarantine center
of Syria in 1834 in Beirut, adopting some sanitary measures during the Egyptian
occupation were carried out after by French, English and American missionaries in
their free clinics and later improved when French and American medical schools
were established in the nineteenth century. The effect of sanitary developments on
the population growth was indirect through the effect of the sanitary developments
on the increasing trade activities and on the economy of the city. The quarantine
center was perhaps less significant in improving the health of Beirut than it was in
improving the economy since it made the city the necessary stop of every ship in the
area. The Ottoman military hospital was established in 1846 and the American,
French, Prussian and local hospitals followed it throughout the nineteenth century
(Fawaz 1983, 32-34).
70
3.2.4 1860 Civil War and its Consequences
Beirut’s involvement in the problems of the mountain started in the beginning of the
nineteenth century. The involvements were at first by economic intervention. In the
beginning of the nineteenth century the economy of the Mountain was a feudal
system and then became a cash crop system. Beirut’s merchants loaned money to
peasants of the mountain to achieve an alternative to the feudal system that they were
involved in the regional problems. Then Beirut became an administrative and
political center with the Egyptian occupation in 1831 and remained as the center
during the restoration of the Ottoman rule over Syria in 1840. As Beirut became a
center in the region the relations of the Mountain and Beirut started to change, Beirut
was becoming stronger while the Mountain was weakening. Beirut’s influence over
the Mountain continued to grow also after the civil war of 1860 (Fawaz 1984, 490-
491).
On the Mountain there had been sectarian rivalries and tensions that with the
population movement all their unresolved tensions also moved to Beirut. The conflict
was the result of decades of tension and the struggle of 1857 between the peasants
and the lords of Maronite north. The tensions spread to the districts of the south that
hostilities broke out between Christians and Druzes. Then the disturbances spread to
Damascus, where Sunni Muslims attacked the Christian, primarily the Greek
Orthodox, part of the town. The reasons for the disturbances in the mountain and in
Damascus were different but they changed the traditionally privileged groups of
wealth and power. In Mount Lebanon, the changes were the break-up of the feudal
economy and the loss of economic balance between Maronite and Druze
communities, in favor of Maronites. In Damascus, they included a more general
problem of the weakening Ottoman power against the European power. During the
struggles in the interior regions of the country, violence did not occur in Beirut. The
city escaped the conflicts of its hinterland and other coasts of Syria (Salibi 1965,
71
105-107). The reasons for Beirut’s avoidance of the struggles of 1860 were firstly the
economic growth by the increasing trade with the west and secondly the balance of
power of both Ottoman and European forces in the city as it was not in the interior
parts of the region. European authority was strong in the city and the Ottoman
influence was also strong and remained strong after the Egyptian occupation. Both
forces remained in check and on guard of each other and this situation prevented the
political deterioration in the city during the civil war in the region (Fawaz 1984, 489-
490).
The reasons of the struggles were two sided that European consuls and the Ottoman
administration accused each other on the increasing tension on the Mountain. The
European consuls suspected the Ottoman administration of sympathizing with the
Druzes and Muslims and encouraging their attacks on Christians, while Ottomans
accused the European consuls of stimulating Christian feelings in the Mountain. The
last accusation was actually against the French troops that after their landing in
Beirut August 1860, just before the civil war started. Both sides believed the other
had the power to stimulate the events. Whatever Ottoman and European rivalries
developed in dealing with the struggles and the civil war of 1860, Beirut became a
main decision center, an activity point and a destination for refugees (Fawaz 1984,
490-491).
France was very active and dominant in Beirut. French religious and educational
agencies were very active in the city. There were convents, schools, an orphanage, a
hospital, and churches in Beirut and in Mount Lebanon, which during the upheavals
in 1860 they provided relief for refugees.
The demographic situation of Lebanon was a two-folded case by the end of the
nineteenth century. In the mountain, the sectarian, the ethnical and the tribal
differences turned into groupings and gained their independent status while in Beirut;
72
there was a cosmopolitan, a communal mixing of Christians and Muslims. Before the
rural population exodus started in the 1860s the population of both Christians and
Muslims were numerically equal. But by the third quarter of the nineteenth century
the equality came to an end in favor of the Christians. Between 1840 and 1865 the
number of Muslims in Beirut doubled while the number of Christians tripled. The
increasing Christian population also advanced their economic activities more rapidly
than the Muslim population. The reason was the relations in trade activities. Muslims
were mainly had the dominance in the trade with the east while the Christians had the
dominance in the trade with the west. The trade with the west was more profitable
than the trade with the east. Christian traders became more prestigious in the city.
Moreover, legislation was introduced by the Ottoman rulers between 1839 and 1876
that raised the status of the Christian community.
The civil war of 1860 certainly brought hostility between Christians and Muslims but
cooperation also continued. There are claims that the presence of European ships in
Beirut’s harbor prevented bloodshed in the city in 1860, but according to Fawaz, the
real reason behind Beirut’s avoidance of bloodshed must lie in the population itself.
The sectarian hostility was among both the ordinary people and the rich population.
3.2.5 Changing Social Structure
The population growth changed the social structure of the city. While Sunni Muslims
had the numerical superiority in other coastal cities of the area, Beirut had a
substantial Christian majority beginning with the 1830s. At this time Beirut became a
city with a Christian majority.
Beirut’s people were used to live together by ignoring their religious and ethnic
differences when they were doing business. City’s population was composed of
73
mainly Sunni Muslims and Greek Orthodox Christians for centuries and they lived
together and done business. By the 1850s the increasing migration from the interior
regions changed the population dynamics but did not affect the business relations
between these groups or the local population did not let the deterioration of the
economic relations and interests at first.
Beirut in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries became a prosperous
cosmopolitan city by the presence of Europeans, especially Christian refugees from
the interior regions of the country and numerous migrants including Armenians and
Circassians who added diversity to the city’s population. The presence of a strong
merchant class with common economic interests provided the city’s ethnic and
religious groups a social tolerance. Among these groups there were Shiites, Sunnis,
Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Druzes, and Jews. Especially
in the center of the town the mixing was seen in the types of business partners in
private facilities. In the souks and bazaars, artisans and traders worked side by side.
Christians and Muslims were also mixed in the official functions that they served in
the same communities and courts (Nagel 2002, 719).
A certain category of traders, most of them Christians, who became European trade
agents, benefited from the concentration of western interests. An important local
bourgeoisie appeared and identified more and more to western cultural values. This
new bourgeoisie took possession of the available urban land on the exterior of the old
city wall, on the surrounding hills and built large residences reflecting the new
acquired wealth. In the new residential zones, communal spaces were not well
defined but the mosques, churches or schools showed the increasing in either one of
the groups.
The expanding European effect in the city changed the urban organization. Beirut
started to integrate in the world economy and became the main outlet for Damascus,
74
and a center for the interior. For a few years, the city has seen mainly the arrival of
diplomats, industrialists, contractors and job seekers. Industrialists were mainly
investing money into silk economy between the years 1860-1880 and contractors
were mainly involved in the construction of urban facilities mainly in infrastructure
and communications like the widened harbor, new roads and railroads joining Beirut
to Damascus, telegraph and gas lightings, tramway lines in the city and street paving.
European consuls, merchants, and bankers were among the most powerful members
of the Beirut’s society, the most important factor for the social development of Beirut
was mainly by the rise of a local commercial bourgeoisie composed of mainly Syrian
Christians. There were some reasons for the rise of the local commercial bourgeoisie
of Christians that firstly, they had the ability to obtain the fiscal and judicial
exemptions that foreign protection had presented (Fawaz, 1983, 61, 74, 85-89).
Second reason was the familiarity of local Christian entrepreneurs with domestic
market conditions and their ability to force their contracts and gain advantage over
European competitors (Owen 1981, 158). Third reason was the capital accumulations
of the native Christians to invest in commerce (Reimer 1991, 147). These native
Christians were both from Beirut and also the migrants of the interior regions of the
country. These migrants were generally prosperous traders and skilled artisans that
they took the advantages given before to become the commercial bourgeoisie of the
city (Fawaz 1983, 52-60). However the local Christian population dominated the
commercial activities, Muslim merchants also participated in the commercial
expansion of Beirut that a relatively small number of Muslims were in collaboration
with Christian entrepreneurs. But the trade in the interior regions of the country, on
the other hand, was still dominated by the Muslim merchants (Fawaz 1983, 95-97).
The Muslim migrants of Beirut were mainly the poor population of the region as they
were seeking opportunities in the developing city of Beirut. Hostilities and the crime
grew in the city with migration of poor people. The struggles among the rich were
75
different than the common people that while they were fighting openly, the rich
population consisting of merchants and notables made their struggles in the political
arena for gaining more power and influence the administration. They founded
societies, schools, and hospitals for their own communities. The Christians
established the Greek Catholic Patriarchal College in 1865, the Maronite Ecole de la
Sagesse in 1874, the Greek Orthodox school of Thalathat Aqmar, and in 1880 the
girls’ school Zahrat al-Ihsan supported by Emilie Sursock. Among Muslim schools
there were Dal al-Funun, a primary school founded in 1880, and the Maqasid
Benevolent Society, founded in 1878 and became the leading Sunni educational and
medical center in Beirut. Merchants and other notables established their own
societies, schools, and hospitals that besides the social and economic separation
between the Muslims and Christians, cultural gaps were also forming which were
encouraged by educational institutions, especially the by the French schools (Fawaz
1983, 112, 116-1179).
The collaboration of Muslim and Christian merchants was preserved by personal
relationship, as it was the case earlier, while the struggles were continuing in the city.
Notables of the two communities continued to meet regularly at official functions.
Although Christian population was exceeding the Muslim population in Beirut, they
continued to share equal representation with Muslims on committees. At the end of
the nineteenth century, more public committees were formed in Beirut to answer the
growing urban needs of the city.
Beirut’s expanding opportunities also changed the ways its people made their living.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the people were generally in crafts, trade,
or government service. Artisans, shopkeepers, and workers were constituted the
majority, that they were ruled over by an upper class of government officials and
wealthy people composed of Muslim notables and a combined Muslim and Christian
merchant bourgeoisie. The expansion of Beirut’s commerce, the establishment of
76
foreign consulates and trading firms, and of new local merchant and money lending
houses diversified the class of wealthy people by the end of the nineteenth century. A
new and predominantly local Christian merchant class emerged. Usually the new
emerging merchant class was the foreign entrepreneurs in other port cities of the
Middle East while in Beirut the local merchants took the advantage of the economic
development of the city and kept the profit for themselves. Fawaz gives this situation
and interprets the result as the people of Beirut enjoyed a degree of social mobility
that would have been unheard of earlier in Beirut or in the hierarchical society of
Mount Lebanon. The local merchants also played an important role in the economic
development of Beirut. Fawaz mentions these local entrepreneurs as agents of
change in the city. The rich refugees who fled from Mount Lebanon or the interior
regions of Syria brought their money and experience with them to Beirut. They
constituted a new merchant class and in the following decades of the nineteenth
century that class accumulated more money and political power. This new class
began to display its wealth, which was a result of the expansion of trade with the
west, by their clothing, housing, customs, and education (Fawaz 1983, 123).
In the beginning of the nineteenth century Beirut had a community where Muslims
and Christians were living side by side but by the end of the century new sectarian
tensions affected the socio-economic and political balance between communities that
these changes shaped the city.
The city center maintained its diversified population. As in many Levantine cities,
Beirut’s central area brought together an urban merchant class of different religious
and ethnic communities who worked as partners or business associates alongside
each other. In the case of Beirut it was composed of Sunnis, Maronites, Druzes,
Jews, Armenians, and Kurds. Their partnership in the commercial activities spread
into other spheres of the life in the city that the city center became a home to a
77
cosmopolitan mix of theaters, restaurants, hotels, religious buildings and public and
private institutions.
The daily life of both Christians and Muslims were alike that their shared way of life
was based on a common set of values. At least until mid-nineteenth century, they
shared social values and the local culture. The economic relations between Christian
and Muslims coexisted that merchants of the various communities became partners.
Christian merchants entered into partnership with Muslims to protect themselves
from the government and for the reason that Muslims make more money in business.
On the Muslim side though, there was not the same need to do business with
Christians, but they did. Wealthy Christian and Muslim merchants cooperated in
trading transactions and landowning deals (Fawaz 1083, 104-105).
Beirut was known for its tolerance throughout most of the nineteenth century, but by
World War I it became divided along sectarian lines. The rapidity of Beirut’s growth
was responsible for the division along sectarian lines because people did not develop
urban ways of living as they moved into the urban environment. There were also the
refugees of the civil war who brought their memories with them to the city. Among
the poorer people the sectarian tensions were more than there in the merchant class
as they were sharing the same profit (Fawaz 1083, 124).
Source: Ortaylı 2000a.
Figure 3.3 Population of Cities of Lebanon by the Beginning of the
Twentieth Century.
78
79
3.3 Transformation of Urban Pattern and the Planning History of Beirut
Beirut is a city on the Mediterranean basin that was placed between the sea and the
mountains. This geographic character of Beirut shaped the city’s history and
developed the role of the city in the region as a link between the mountain and the
sea, between the East and the West. This role shaped not only the socio-economy but
also the development of the urban macroform.
Beirut’s city pattern has been composed of many historical layers dated to 1200BC
and these layers formed the city’s urban identity. Some elements of these layers
survived and enhanced the city’s heritage and identity. Beirut was under Ottoman
rule between 1516 and 1920 and after 1920 till 1943 it was the French Mandate what
gave way to the development of Beirut. The main urban features for transformation
and the planning activities of Beirut in the nineteenth century and in the beginning of
the twentieth century will be studied in this section.
3.3.1 Urban Macroform in the First Half of the Century
By the beginning of the nineteenth century the population of Beirut was almost
6.000, in 1840s the population became 10.000, in 1860s it was 40.000 and by the
beginning of 1870s the population reached to 75.000 (Fawaz 1983, 127-129). This
significant increase in the population also changed the physical structure of the city.
Until 1835, Beirut was a completely fortified seaport town and was surrounded by
gardens. The central core of the city was built around its historic port. The whole of
the fortified town covered around 550-600 meters from the harbor to its southern
gate and 350-400 meters from its eastern to its western portals. The town seemed
closed up to its environs (Figure 3.4) that it was surrounded by mulberry plantations
and the natural habitat. In the beginning of the nineteenth century outside the city
walls, houses were found only in big gardens. So, before 1840 the city just started to
80
expand beyond the walls by garden houses but Beirut still had all of its walls and had
most of its population inside these walls until 1840. Gross density was high inside
the walls, like around 300 people per hectare (Khalaf and Kongstad 1973a, 118).
According to Khalaf and Kongstad it was a regular walled medieval town and it was
displaying many of the features of the pre-industrial city that was put forward by
Sjoberg (Sjoberg 1960). Like most of fortified cities, along the fortification walls and
between the lines of castles the city was organized with six main gates. (Figure 3.5)
As in most European pre-industrial towns, people in Beirut lived and worked in the
same urban quarter. The urban quarter was a self-sufficient place except some places
like the souks and the public bath. They were the main areas showing spatial
specialization in the city. Neighborliness was a strong concept, that quarters were
segregated according to ethnic and religious differences. Physical and social spaces
were almost identical that this ethnic and religious differentiation created
homogeneous and compact quarters (Khalaf and Kongstad 1973b, 118).
The maps of Beirut dated 1841 (Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5) were drawn by British
military engineers, T.F. Skyring and Major Rochfort, whose aim was to prepare
documents that could be used in the event of military action in the area (Davie 1987,
141-164). All the topographical details were shown like the cliffs, hills, stream lines,
plantations and natural areas. They surveyed the whole settlement area and prepared
detailed plans of the town and its environs for the early nineteenth century. They
showed the defense buildings like the route of the fortification walls with the details
of the openings, castles, barracks, and gates of the city. These maps also show the
physical structure of the city; the pattern of the souks with the details of whether they
were closed or not, some buildings like the serail, the khans, mosques and churches.
There were also the structures outside the city walls before the city’s rapid expansion
in the third quarter of the nineteenth century and before the demolition of its defenses
and the beginning of its urban extension, occupying the gardens and mulberry
plantations.
81
Some travelers’ accounts whose names were not given by Fawaz except Michaud et
Poujoulat, were also descriptive for the early nineteenth century Beirut. According to
the accounts we understand that the areas near the port area were the pleasant areas
of the city. Two good streets of Beirut were found there with large stone houses
along them. Beyond these streets there was a street inhabited by bankers and
moneychangers and beyond that the Greek quarter with its coffeehouses and
cabarets. Approaching the center of the town the streets became narrower and badly
paved (Fawaz 1983, 10-12). From Figure 3.5 it can be traced that the width and the
orientation of the streets change that the streets near the port were wider and straight
while the streets of the city center were narrower, with more indirect forms and
generally covered. Although Davie refers to Roman times of Beirut and its grid street
pattern that was aligned on cardo decumanus (Figure 3.7), the grid-iron plan could
not be fully trailed in the nineteenth century (Davie 2006). But the evidences of the
cardo decumanus axis was still available, the axis from the serail and Bab es Saraiya
on the east to Bab Idriss on the west survived as the decumanus and the axis from the
port on the north to the St. George Greek Orthodox Church (Figure 3.6) survived as
the cardo. Besides these there was not a particular street pattern in the city center.
There was an irregular division of land with streets, and divided plots generally
served by cul-de-sacs. (Figure 3.8) But the cardo decumanus can also be seen in the
irregular pattern.
Traffic was a mixture of people, camels, horses and donkeys. Even in the daytime the
streets were dark because the arches or mats were covering the streets cutting the
daylight. Thick high walls of the stone houses were also making the streets darker.
Behind the walls, the houses were courtyard houses with an open space in the
middle. A pedestrian in the street could not have seen over the walls. Although the
houses built around internal courtyard gives openness, the pedestrian in the street
finds the space closed and dark because of the high walls and arches that closes the
streets. Michaud et Poujoulat who had travels in the orient in 1830-31 recorded the
stone houses and streets as the following (Fawaz 1983, 10-12);
82
The houses built in stone were higher than those of any other town in Syria;
arches, secret paths, dark passages, narrow and tortuous streets inspire at first
a kind of fright in the traveler who wants to visit the town; each house
constitutes a huge, inaccessible dungeon.
When the traveler comes to the city center, bazaar was seen as the heart of the city
where all activities were gathered that it was lively; the narrow and covered streets,
each with its own specialty with small shops and single-story dwellings. There were
also a few public fountains, numerous khans and coffeehouses.
Lamartine, who visited Beirut in 1832, mentions about the houses (Khalaf and
Kongstad 1973a, 15-16). The houses were side by side with their flat-roofed terraces
attached to each other. Except for souks, khans, public baths, religious buildings and
other public buildings, the roofs of the buildings were like flat-roofed farm houses
and they were traditional two or three-storied red tiled villas. Sandstone blocks as
abundant in the area were the dominant construction form.
In the city center there were six mosques and at least three churches. (Figure 3.6)
One of the most important mosques was the Jami’ al-Umari al-Kabir and the largest
of the churches was the Greek Orthodox church of Saint George. Other churches
were the Maronite church and a Catholic church. Another church of Saint George
was located outside the city walls near the Dog River (Nahr al-Kalb). The
administrative facilities of Beirut in the first half of the nineteenth century were
directed by the seraglio which was on the eastern end of the city and the house of
local judge. The rest of Beirut’s public buildings were the public baths and hotels.
One of the public baths was located near the seraglio, one hotel was on the harbor
and another was on the western edge of town (Fawaz 1983, 10-12).
83
Despite its small settlement area in the first half of the nineteenth century, Beirut had
some of the main characteristics of a real Arab city with its fortifications, serail,
numerous religious and civil monuments, specialized commodities and a varied
population of different sectarian and religious groups. Although there is little
evidence on the physical distribution of the residents of Beirut in the early part of the
nineteenth century (Figure 3.9), the city had a traditional Middle Eastern pattern of
neighborhood distribution where rich and poor were grouped together according to
religious affiliation, ethnic background, and place of origin (Fawaz 1983, 106;
Khalaf and Kongstad 1973b, 118).
Poujoulat mentioned a specific Greek quarter near the port in his travel records. But
on the other hand there were also the evidences that Fawaz gives the finding of
Guys2 and the Mahkama Shar’iyya for the 1840s that Muslims and Christians were
buying land side by side in the newly developing area of town or in the outskirts of
the city. In the bazaar the mixing of different sects was greater that groups worked
side by side. The streets of the bazaar were organized by profession not by religious
affiliation. The architecture of the city was also homogenous that the bazaar was
uniform and even in the quarters there were not obvious physical differences that
were separated according to religious or ethnic identity. Houses were similar both
inside and outside whatever the religion of the occupants’ was (Fawaz 1983, 106-
107). In the case of administrative structure of the city there are not evidences
showing the traditional pattern of self administration of the quarters by the leaders of
the sectarian or religious group occupying the neighborhood as the main
characteristic of Arab cities.3
2 Guys, Henri. 1850. Beyrout et le Liban: Relation d'un Sejour de Plusieurs Annees Dans ce Pays
I.Paris : Comon, quoted in Fawaz 1983, 106-107.
3 For a detailed analysis of the urban pattern of the Arap Cities in the Ottoman Period, see; Raymond,
1995.
Source: Davie, Michael. 1987.
Figure 3.4 Map of Beirut and its environs in 1841
84
Source: Davie, Michael. 1987.
Figure 3.5 Map of Beirut in 1841.
85
Source: The Map based on Davie, Michael. 1987 and thematic locations of
religious structures derived from Davie, May. 1992.
Figure 3.6 Landuse Map of Beirut in 1841
86
Figure 3.7 Cardo Decumanus Trails of Beirut.
Source: Saqqaf 1987.
87
Figure 3.8 Pedestrian Network of Beirut.
Source: Davie, May 1996. 142.
Figure 3.9 Distribution of Christian Population in the City
Center of Beirut (c. 1810)
3.3.2 Urban Growth and Spatial Formations in the Second Half of the Century
3.3.2.1 Urban Growth
The number of dwellings outside the city walls was not large by the 1840s but the
number increased so much by the 1860s that about two thirds of the population
started to live in the newly built suburbs (Fawaz 1983, 32-34). This was a very rapid
expansion. The population growth brought this situation and the reason for the
population growth was the migration that the mass migration of the era actually had
88
89
not started until 1860s. This earlier migrations in the 1840s influenced the pattern
and the long-term development of the city. From 1840s to 1870s the expansion of the
city can be observed from the comparison of land-use surveys of the city (Figure 3.5
and Figure 3.10). The expansion demolished the city walls and from there it has been
developing and expanding in all directions, despite the slopes of the mountain.
Özveren gives the words of Walter Thompson who wrote about the city in 1870
(Özveren 1994, 83). Thompson’s first visit to Beirut was in 1830s that he saw very
few houses outside the city walls when compared to the 1870s that hundreds of big
villas and comfortable houses were standing on the hillside and most of the
population was living in the houses with gardens. In his visit he observed that the
population of the city was almost 80.000 and half of this population was Christian.
His impressions continue that according to him no other city had grown this fast in
the Ottoman Empire.
Number of foreign merchants also increased with the increasing trade activities so
that the rents of the houses rose. The commercial report of British consul in 29
September 1835 says that (Issawi 1977, 94);
The rents of houses in Beyrout have not only undergone an increase of 500
percent in the last few years but are also scarce on account of the great
demand of Europeans who begin to establish themselves.
The scarcity of the houses for the increasing population was solved by the
construction activities. In 1849 another consul stated about the number new buildings
completed by 1845 (Issawi 1977, 96);
Beyrouth is a thriving commercial town, having usurped the foreign trade
possessed by Sidon; in 1845 above 365 new houses were built in Beyrout; it
90
is now the port for the centre of Syria and Damascus, and the chief point of
communication of Syria with Europe...
While the number of European merchants was increasing in Beirut, the new local
merchant groups especially the Christians working as agents of the European
merchants and firms, acquired new lands outside the city walls and on the
surrounding hills. They built large residences reflecting their wealth. In these new
residential zones, the segregation was not well defined but by observing the numbers
and locations of the mosques, churches or schools, the resident group could be
identified.
While the influence of the west was developing, many educational institutions,
numerous primary and secondary schools and universities were built in the second
half of the nineteenth century. In 1866 two major universities were founded that
would be the first steps of city’s becoming a cultural center of the region. The
American University of Beirut was founded in 1866 by the support of the State of
New York and the University of St. Joseph was founded in 1881 by the support of
the French government and administered by the Jesuit order (Khalaf and Kongstad
1973a, 20).
The map of Beirut dated 1876 (Figure 3.10) was drawn by Danish Acting Consul,
Julius Loytved to be presented to Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Julius Loytved was a mapmaker,
an archaeologist and also the director of the Anglo Syrian Schools (Kassab
and Tadmori 2002, 13). It is a detailed land survey map of the era. Twelve districts of
Beirut were shown in the map 1- Old City and Souks, 2- Al-Zaitonueh, 3- Ras-
Beiurut, 4- Mseitbeh, 5- Mazra’at al Arab, 6- Ras el-Nabaa, 7- Al Bashoura, 8-
Achrafieh, 9- St. Dimitri, 10- Mimas, 11- Rmeil and 12- As-Saifi. The Damascus
route, the Saida route and the Tripoli route were made clear by the given emphasis at
the ends of the area covered by the map. In addition to these, forty seven other points
were shown on the map which are the locations of government departments,
91
consulates, military posts, educational and health institutions, public parks and
private gardens, cemeteries, archaeological sites, sand and rock hills.
The numbers assigned to the quarters were located on the map starting from the
center to the west, following to the south then east and finally the last numbers turn
again to the center of the map. So the number twelve was on the eastern side of the
Souks area. Al-Zaitonueh is on the west side of the Souks area, and Ras-Beiurut is
the western end of the map. Mseitbeh, Mazra’at al Arab, Ras el-Nabaa, and Al
Bashoura quarters are on the south, Achrafieh and St. Dimitri are on the south-east of
the map. Mimas is on the eastern end of the map while Rmeil and As-Saifi are the
eastern side of the Souks area.
In a further analysis it can be seen that by 1876 city size increased almost 10-12
times of the size in 1841 while the population increased almost 7-8 times within the
same era. Only the old city and the souks area existed in the map of 1841 while
eleven other districts were added in 1876. The rapid growth of the city in the second
half of the nineteenth century can also be observed by the spread of the city
structures outside the city walls and the expansion of the city. (Figure 3.11)
The main routes leading from the city center, from the gates of the city to the
environs in the map of 1841 became the major axis of urban growth in the second
half of the nineteenth century (Figure 3.12). To the west, the route leading to Ras
Beirut, the Bliss Street and the Hamra Street became the major axis of attraction.
That attraction will result in the formation of the new quarter of Hamra and the
transformation would be observable by the beginning of the twentieth century which
will be studied in the following parts of this section. Al-Zaitonueh became a
residential area on the way to Hamra district. The area was populated by the wealthy
Moslem families of Beirut, with houses clustered around the el-Mreisseh Mosque
(Figure 3.24 and Figure 3.25). On the south around and between the routes leading to
Damascus and Saida a new and densely constructed area emerged. On the east of the
92
city center, the route leading to Tripoli passing through the Martyr’s Square became
the main axis for the Al-Saifi and Achrafieh (Figure 3.26 and Figure 3.27) quarters.
The street was called Gourad Street that it became a main axis in the city. The semicircular
area around the city center was filled with buildings, though a wider semicircular
area surrounding the previous one was also turned into residential area. The
gardens of mulberry trees and wild natural areas turned into constructed areas. While
the smaller circle inhabited more residents and less open space, the wider circle
covers the peripheries with more open spaces or gardens for its residents.
While the main activities were still gathered in the city center and the in the near
environs of the old city and the souks area, the spread of educational and health
facilities and also police stations, shows the direction of growth which surrounded
the city. But the density difference between the new residential areas can be traced
by the street pattern. It can also be traced by the building types. The buildings are
adjacent in the areas covered by the smaller circle and are lined up along the street
while on the peripheries the residential areas were scattered in the plots apart from
each other within their own gardens around.
From the examination of Figure 3.11 it can be observed that the consulates occupied
the areas to the west of the old city and souks area which increased the building
activities in this region with the needs of the consulates and their families. The
location of police stations showed that the role of the city walls of the old city in
1840s were taken by the police stations as they surrounded the main resided areas.
The schools were established mainly in the outskirts of the city. The reasons may
vary that first assumption may be for the pull of population and pull of the
construction activities in the outskirts the location of the schools were selected as
shown. Second assumption may be for the seclusion of the schools from the
population of the city as they were all colleges with national or religious identities.
To continue with the spread of city structures, the locations of the hotels show us the
93
recreational area of the city. (Figure 3.28) As the geography was available for the use
of the beach in the western part of the port area the sea bath and three hotels were
established here. The final part, existing city center did not change its major structure
much but some transformations occurred with the changing socio-economic structure
of the city as will be discussed in the following parts of this section.
Source: American University of Beirut, Jafet Library, Archives and Special Collections Department.
Figure 3.10 1876 Map of Beirut by Julius Loytved.
94
95
Source: Prepared on the map of A. L. Mansel (Appendix B) and the data is derived from the following:
Loytved, Julius. 1876. American University of Beirut, Jafet Library, Archives and Special Collections Department. (June 2006)
Plan of Beirut City taken from the archives of the Ottoman Water Company of Beirut (Kassab and Tadmori. 2002, 50) (Appendix C)
Figure 3.11 Landuse Map of Beirut (c.1880).
Source: Khalaf and Kongstad 1973b, 117.
Figure 3.12 Development of Urban Pattern of Beirut in Stages
3.3.2.2 Changing City Center
The need for a new city with the increasing relations with the west and by the
reforms of the Tanzimat brought a dual system of city centers in the cities of the
Empire. In Beirut the creation of a new center in the nineteenth century was not
observed but the existing city center evolved with the changes. The port city model
depicted by Khalaf and Konstad in the introduction part of this thesis was suitable for
the case study that the new formations occurred within the old city center and
functions. The need for new functions were solved both in the form of building new
structures, like the case of grand Serail or in the form of changing functions of the
96
97
existing structures, like the case of Khan Antoun Bey; transforming from a
traditional caravanserai to a business khan.
Khan Antoun Bey Square (Figure 3.29 and Figure 3.30) was one of the main features
of the city center. It was the entrance of the city from the sea and developed since
1841 with the increasing importance in trade activities with the west. Khan Antoun
Bey that the square was named was one of the most important caravanserais of
Beirut. It was built in 1853 by Antoun Bey Najjar, a merchant who made his fortune
in Constantinople. It became a great business center and the building served for
many institutions like Beirut’s foreign consulates, the Ottoman administration, postal
services, merchants’ offices and Beirut’s first bank, Imperial Ottoman (Gavin and
Maluf 1996, 89). It had trading offices on the ground and first floors and on the
upper floor it was occupied by foreign consulates. The inner courtyard was used to
park the horse-drawn carriages of the consuls who had offices in this Khan
(SOLIDERE 1994b, 55-56). On the southern side of the square there was the
Majidiyeh Mosque which was originally a Crusader fort raised on the cliff and
ancient city walls, overlooking the sea. The building was converted into a mosque in
1841, during the reign of Sultan Abdul Mecid, from whom it takes its name. The
square also serves for wheat and timber wharves. The square evolved after
construction of the great Ottoman jetty and new quaysides in the 1890s.
Place des Canons was the second point of interest in the city center. It was also called
the Bourj Square in the beginning of the twentieth century and Martyr’s Square after
First World War. In 1841 the place was seen as the serail garden and mainly empty
but in 1876 the area became a public garden and a meeting point (Figure 3.13, for the
pictures see Figure 3.31, Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33). Two decisions made the area
a meeting point. First decision was made after the installment of tramway lines in the
city that Place des Canons was chosen as the meeting point for the lines as the space
was available and empty. The second decision was the building of the public park in
98
the area that made the gathering point for people for recreation and commercial
activities. As the public occasions taken in this place a police station was also
established on the square (Figure 3.11).
The Grand Serail or The Imperial Barracks on the south-western end of the old city
overlooking Beirut was built in the second half of the nineteenth century. The hill of
the Serail attracted the attention of İbrahim Pasha on his troop to Beirut in 1841 and
made the place the location of his garrison. After the departure of Egyptian troops in
1841, the Ottoman Governor ordered the construction of army barracks on the same
site in 1851. The construction of the first floor has ended in 1856 and started to be
used. The second floor ended in 1877 and the construction of the whole building
ended in 1899 (Kassab and Tadmori 2002, 41). The Ottoman Military Hospital was
established nearby the Serail in 1846 (Gavin and Maluf, 1996, 81) and the American,
French, Prussian and local hospitals followed it throughout the nineteenth century
(Fawaz, 1093, 34). (Figure 3.34, Figure 3.35 and Figure 3.36)
New buildings for the new functions of the developing city were built in the parts of
the existing city center (Figure 3.11). The banks, the quarantine office, new quays,
railway office, telegraph and post office, police stations and offices for foreign
agencies were all established in the existing city center.
The most preserved area, the souks area (Figure 3.37) was the heart of the city center
and the overall city. The souks area has not changed its irregular street pattern
(Figure 3.13). The traditional routes and the covered souks were preserved and the
function of the souks was also preserved. The small public squares between the
blocks and the cul-de-sacs were also observable in both maps. This existing
traditional street system of the city center would not change until the beginning of
the twentieth century when the first planning acts were taken into action.
The location of public buildings like the khans, churches, mosques, and various other
administrative or commercial buildings were pointed in Figure 3.13 which shows the
increasing number of point of interests in the city center with the developing
functions of the center between the years 1841 and 1876.
Figure 3.13 Transformation of Beirut City Center (1841 – 1876).
1841 map is on the left and 1876 map is on the right.
99
10 0
3.3.2.3 Transportation Facilities
Transportation became a main issue by the end of the nineteenth century. The
construction of railway stations, improvements in the port facilities, development of
warehouses and hotels were taken place. Until the mid-nineteenth century the port of
Beirut lacked the quay necessary for ship docking and the necessary loading and
unloading installations. Consequently ships had to anchor at a distance from the
shore and boats were used to carry passengers and goods on shore. Then a company
was founded under the name of Ottoman Company of Beirut Port, Quays and
Warehouses to build a new basin which was finished in 1892 (Kassab and Tadmori
2002, 99).
In 1906 an Imperial decree was issued for the creation of an Ottoman Joint Stock
Company for establishing a tramway system in Beirut. (Figure 3.36) This street tram
became the backbone of Beirut’s transport system in the early 1900s (Gavin and
Maluf 1996, 121). The main lines that the electrical tramway serviced in Beirut
covered many areas. The first route was beginning from the Khan of Fakhry Bey,
passing by al-Majidiyyah road and the military hospital road to the city wall. The
second route was beginning from the Government House and going through the
Damascus road. The third one was from Bab Idriss to the Sharia al-Jaded, the fourth
one was from the city wall to al-Bachourah quarter, the fifth one from the military
hospital to Mseitbeh, the sixth one from the wheat port to Ras-Beirut and finally the
seventh one was leading from Khan Antoun Bey to Ras-Beirut (Kassab and Tadmori
2002, 121). The routes were intersecting at Place des Canons that the Ottoman ruler
of Beirut transformed the square into a major public garden in the second half of the
nineteenth century. With the tramway lines built in the beginning of the twentieth
century the space also became an active meeting point (Sarkis 2005, 289).
10 1
3.3.2.4 Formation of New Quarters
The new peripheries were mainly the result of the migration of rural migrants and
urban bourgeoisie from Mount Lebanon and from the inland cities that these
migrants settled outside the city walls. Saliba divides the residential buildings in the
new settlement areas into three types; firstly the upper-class mansions, secondly the
flat-roofed farmhouses surrounded by gardens and finally the cubic stone structures
with red-tiled roofs. The first examples of constructions were the houses in gardens
outside the city walls. The second type was the continuation of the old farm houses,
but the new farm houses were also built. The final kind was the new type emerged as
a new building type in the city. The new factors were the central hall, the triple arch
and the corbelled marble balcony used by the new migrant urban bourgeoisie. This
kind of building was not only used in residential buildings. (Figure 3.39 and Figure
3.28) The buildings with a central hall and red-tiled roofs also served as models for
hotels or mixed-use buildings in the expanding central area of Beirut. The first office
buildings along the waterfront and in the port district and the buildings in the Place
des Canon were also built in the new type (Saliba 2004, 23-30).
A new type of migrants appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Christian Europeans especially after the establishment of the Syrian Protestant
College (later American University of Beirut) in 1866 in the Hamra district changed
the overall character of the area known as the Ras-Beirut. Hamra turned into a
European-style suburb on the periphery. (Figure 3.14)
Khalaf and Konstad studied the district of Hamra in Beirut as a distinct case in the
Arab world. The development of Hamra district was considered as a historical
accident instead of a deliberate urban planning by the authors. The founding of
American University of Beirut in 1866 was the accident that started the growth of
Hamra district. The shifting street patterns, the competition for space and location,
10 2
and the changing socio-economic character of the residing population in the district
have all been the results of this historic accident (Khalaf and Konstad 1973a; Khalaf
and Konstad 1973b, 123-126).
Hamra was full of gardens, it was a farming area by the 1870s as can be noticed from
the Loytved’s map of 1876 (Figure 3.10). There were almost 25-30 farm houses and
a few residential structures on the south of the Syrian Protestant College. In both
style and construction, farm houses had a uniform pattern that the typical farm house
was a square, flat-roofed, one-story building constructed with the traditional
sandstone blocks with a floor space of not more than 300 square meters. They spread
in the entire region when compared with the suburban villas. Suburban villas were
the other form of constructions in the region (Figure 3.39 and Figure 3.40). They first
appeared on the Bliss Street and in other areas directing to the university. The
suburban villas were the typical coastal two-storied or three-storied, red-tiled houses
with elaborate facades, decorative stairways and balconies (Khalaf and Konstad
1973b, 133-135). Bliss Street is the east-west oriented main street of Hamra district
passing near the university area. (Figure 3.40)
As it was accepted that Hamra district grew without a considered planning or without
an urban development act, then it grew with the free-market forces. As it was
mentioned that there were suburban villas then these villas should have been the
residents of the instructors and the workers of the college. The variety of the
residents of the area as in structure and style, the villas reflected the more privileged
socio-economic status of their inhabitants than the ones living in farm houses. The
residents of the villas were mostly the first truly urban group settled in the area. This
group constituted the newly emerging middle class that became the dominant socioeconomic
group in the area. The inhabitants of the villas were differentiated
ethnically and religiously but the same reason affected them to the same area. The
reasons were the opportunities that came into existence by the university. The
10 3
residences reflected a rather modest but comfortable style of living. The farm houses
and villas were the dominant structures till the mid-twentieth century and the streets’
orientation were alongside the walled gardens, agricultural plots, and alleys lined
with cactus hedges (Figure 3.42) (Khalaf and Konstad 1973b, 133-135).
The variety and the difference of the residents of Hamra district from the traditional
town dwellers also shaped a new kind of daily life in the city. The university served
as a focal point for the intelligentsia whose members were the members of Arab
nationalists and other political and ideological movements in the region. The district
was also an important center for the literary and publishing activities that made
Beirut the center of the Arabic language press. Nagel gives the distinct characteristic
of Ras Beirut as the concentration of students, writers, journalists, academics, and
radicals which meant that the area enjoyed an atmosphere of social interactions, like
the mixing of sexes that was not seen in most Arab cities (Nagel 2002, 719).
The district continued its growth and by 1919 two main streets, Jeanne d’Arc and
Abdul Aziz streets, (Figure 3.41) directed from the university attracted new
constructions and the streets became the main streets (Khalaf and Konstad 1973b,
123-126). The farmhouses and the villas continued as the most common form of
dwelling until the end of the Second World War, when the demand for floor-space
increased as waves of new population groups moved in, usually from outside Beirut
(Costello 1977, 96-97). The farmhouses and the villas became almost extinct by the
rising apartments and the walled gardens, agricultural plots, and alleys lined with
cactus hedges began to disappear.
Source: Khalaf and Kongstad 1973a, 35-37.
Figure 3.14 Development of Hamra District by the Maps of 1876, 1919 and 1928
10 4
10 5
3.3.2.5 Other Construction Facilities
During and after the third quarter of the nineteenth century, new construction works
get a speed but still no attempt was made for a whole town planning in this era. The
tradition has just survived in the cases of covered souks, pedestrian alleys, and the
private houses but the construction of administrative buildings can be seen in this era
which was due to the transfer of administrative duties from the control of the military
to the civil bureaucracy, which is attached to the central government. There was also
the construction of monumental buildings in this era to improve the prestige of the
city.
The Clock Tower (Figure 3.34) was built as a monumental building. The location of
the Clock Tower was selected as the park in front of the Grand Serail that enabled
the population to see from all sides and even from far away as the location was
elevated from the city. The monumental building construction was the construction
activity in the whole Empire that the uniqueness was lost that for example the Clock
Tower built in Beirut was the exact replica of the clock tower in Tophane Quarter in
İstanbul. The military barracks also shared the same faith that the Grand Serail which
was built as The Imperial Barracks resembles the Selimiye Barrack in İstanbul with
regard to its size, architecture and construction date (Kassab and Tadmori 2002, 23,
161).
The construction of buildings for public service was at the highest level in Beirut for
the whole century as can be traced from Figure 3.8. Firstly the former health clinics
were replaced by public hospitals such as al-Hamidiye Hospital and the Military
Hospital and the rehabilitation of the Quarantine department as part of the reform of
the public health system. Secondly the police stations spread in the city. With the
increasing population the need for police stations made the Ottoman Government set
up 25 police stations in Beirut. Thirdly for the public buildings, it was documented
10 6
that there were twenty churches and monasteries in Beirut in 1870 and their number
increased to thirty five in 1877. The need for new public buildings increased with the
population rise. This growth in Beirut’s population, especially during the second half
of the nineteenth century, resulted in the rise of the water requirement of the city.
The requirement rose above the sources. This situation led the Ottoman Government
to deal and they hired a French engineer M. Thevenin in 1870 for the transmission of
Nahr al-Kalb water to Beirut. Beirut water supply project acquired great importance
and in 1873 an English company established the Beirut Water Works Co. Limited
(Kassab and Tadmori 2002, 19, 41, 75, 95).
3.3.3 First Planning Acts and Application of Danger Plan
Planning started with the renovations in the city that the urban renewal acts were
seen widely in Beirut. After 1860 civil war, the Ottoman Central government paid
more attention to Lebanon and in 1863 Meclis el-Baladi (Yerasimos 2006, 179-184)
was founded in Beirut and from 1868 till 1878 Beirut had two appointed mayors
(Shareef 1998, 49). But according to the regulations, a whole new planning could not
be applied to a region unless a demolishing incident, a fire or an earthquake had
happened. In Beirut the construction supplies were not as apt to the fires as the
materials in İzmir so a whole new plan was never prepared instead some renovations
of boulevards, city squares and creating parcels. The absence of traditional patterns
of land holding, the transfer of land was rendered through cadastral legislation.
Parcels were individualized as early as 1928 which was a tendency to encourage land
transactions and speculation in real estate (Khalaf and Kongstad 1973b, 124).
The first planning practices in Beirut were identified by the colonial planning. This
colonial planning model consisted of two periods. The first is the 1830s – 1910s,
which was the period of late-Ottoman rule in Lebanon. The second is the 1920s –
1930s, which was the period of the French Mandate. Saliba states that the Ottomans
10 7
were responsible for much of Beirut’s early modernization which he describes as an
effort of “secondhand modernization.” During Ottoman rule, planning models were
mostly Western ones that were first applied to İstanbul and then to the different
provincial capitals of the Ottoman state. Beirut acquired the status of a provincial
Ottoman capital during the second half of the nineteenth century. In this context
Saliba mentions that the Tanzimat reforms were applied to Beirut partly through
modernizing the city’s building regulations and upgrading its infrastructure. In the
second period, the French Mandate period, the French planners imposed a Beaux-
Arts and a Haussmanian model consisting of wide boulevards intersecting at
monumental squares over the city’s medieval fabric. Unlike other examples of
colonial planning in the region, where a dual city model was used and the old city
was left intact and the new sections were constructed adjacent to the old ones, in the
case of Beirut, this model was not planned. Although by the reconstruction of the
central area Place d’Etoile, French planners interacted with the traditional areas and
consequently Beirut’s medieval fabric disappeared to be replaced with the colonial
early modern Beirut (Saliba 2000, 2).
A separation between public and private spaces and new administrative divisions
were introduced in the city by the Ottoman authority. Then huge urban development
projects were held to change the urban scenery between 1880s and 1900s. In the
beginning of the twentieth century during the First World War the Swedish architect,
Maximilian Zürcher, was asked to prepare a plan for Beirut. The plan was decided to
be applied in April 1915 and the bonds were distributed to the landowners.
Demolishing of the city center started and for the 69.000 square meters area 2278
plots of land were taken for the new constructions of 20 meters of boulevards. In
1918 when the French troops landed in Beirut the construction process was at the
demolishing process. So the municipal council was dispersed after the French
intervention for the reason it was not representing the population with the ratio of its
members that a new temporary council was created. Until late 1920s a new urban
10 8
plan was not issued that 1882 Ebniye rules were continued to be applied in the city
(Yerasimos 2006, 179-184).
By the time French Mandate was in power during 1924 and 1943 major changes
occurred in the city and Beirut became a colonial city. Starting in 1924 major
constructions was undertaken. In the late 1920’s Beirut under the rule of the French
Mandate, the governor ordered merchants living in the center of the city to empty
and leave their shops within two days in preparation for their demolition. A French
planning team then began to implement a plan for the old town. French planners
imposed a Beaux-Arts and a Haussmanian model consisting of wide boulevards
intersecting at monumental squares over the city’s medieval fabric, by creating the
Place d’Etoile, with large, wide streets coming from it (Figure 3.16). To show the
newly imposed status of capital city, the French organized the street grid in the form
of a star, siting the Parliament building at the center, radiating its political primacy.
Nobody opposed the plan and soon new streets were constructed. The Ma’arad
Street, which was a colonnaded street, formed the major axis of the square running
down to Allenby Street. By 1930, European-style buildings were created in the area
around Ma’arad all the way to the west of Place d’Etoile. The area consisted of
groupings of several small souks, each specializing in the sale of particular kind of
merchandise. There was the egg souk, the shoe souk, the clothes souk, the jewelers’
souk and many others (Gavin and Maluf 1996, 24-27).
The first planning activity was made for Beirut in 1932 by the French consultant
Danger. It was the first attempt at a comprehensive study of the city taking
geographic, climatic, geological and human factors into consideration (Figure 3.19).
This plan determined the major axes of circulation like Beirut-Tripoli, Beirut-Sidon
and Beirut-Damascus. He proposed the creation of different urban centers for
different neighborhoods of the city and a ring road to connect these centers to each
other and to Place des Canons (Martyrs’ Square) (Sarkis 2005, 289). On the detail of
10 9
the plan there is seen a shift on axis through the Martyrs’ Square to the quayside so
that the extended public space follows the line down to a ceremonial landing on the
quayside (Gavin and Maluf 1996, 118). The Plan Danger promoted opening the
Bourj axis from Martyrs’ Square to the inner basin of the Beirut port (Figure 3.18).
The avenue to the sea has been a common theme among Mediterranean cities and, in
Beirut case it showed itself in the form of the Bourj axis. The Plan Danger was the
first comprehensive urban plan of Beirut applying rational zoning and establishing
principles of beaux-arts planning which were prevalent in the 1920s and 30s (Gavin
and Maluf 1996, 47). The city was divided into zones and the population densities
were also determined. The basic utilities like parks and sewers were given and the
plan also recommended the residential developments to be along the gardens. The
plan also proposed for the first time that Beirut should be planned as one unit with its
adjacent and independent villages. However, Danger Plan was never fully put into
effect (Saleem 1970, 111).
As the new suburbs became the part of the central urban fabric two main streets were
constructed in the beginning of the twentieth century through the old fabric to the
sea, Rue Foch and Allenby were connecting the new settlement areas with the port.
The central hall plan of the nineteenth century was replaced by an efficient side by
side office layout. Along the important streets like Gourad Street, Basta Street, and
Bliss Street and in the highly dense center districts middle class apartment houses
with a ground floor of shops and rental apartments above the shops were seen as a
new type of residential structures. It was the speculative apartment building and they
were extended vertically as high-rise walk-ups or horizontally as twin structure either
separate or integrated under one roof (Saliba 2004, 29-33). Large boulevards named
after the victors like general Allenby, Marechal Foch and Weygand (Figure 3.15).
Other constructions also changed the city. Military cemeteries were built and the
khans were transformed into theatres.
11 0
There was a further articulation of the plan of the Martyrs’ square prepared by the
French architect Delahalle that he removed the Ottoman Serail, opened its northern
face to the sea, and cascaded the square toward the port. Delahalle also proposed
Phoenician facades for the buildings adjacent to the square. References to the
Phoenicians existed abundantly in this period as a search for the ways to ground and
justify the nation itself historically (Sarkis 2005, 289). Although neither Danger’s
plan nor Delahalle’s designs were implemented, the connection to the sea remained a
goal for many of the proceeding plans.
The implementation of this new planning brought the discussions that having cleared
the remaining medieval city fabric, the new street grid was superimposed and design
controls applied to individual properties, much like the process established for the
construction of the Haussmanian boulevards of Paris. Plans for huge boulevards and
roundabouts that bisected the old fabric of existing buildings and familiar places and
threatening the pedestrian environment were the characteristics of the approach of
the French urbanist Baron Haussmann to the city and was very successful in the
nineteenth century Paris (Gavin and Maluf 1996, 55-56).
Davie argues that the French who created the Place d’Etoile which was an example
of a Beaux-Arts and a Haussmanian planning in Beirut, negotiated their plan with the
rich local landowners and waqf institutions of the city. Davie supports the point of
view by the fact that the French planners did not implement their radial plan for the
Place d’Etoile in totality and as originally intended. The Danger Plan (Figure 3.16)
which was dated 1931 shows the original area of the Etoile which was conceived in
the shape of a star. The original plan for the Etoile area was not fully implemented,
in certain areas like where religious building existed. The churches of St. Elie and St.
George were survived and the two eastern arms of the “Etoile” were never built. In
addition, the plan shows the importance of upgrading Beirut’s port. In the end, only
parts of the original Danger plan were implemented which includes the port area and
11 1
parts of the Place d’Etoile. Davie mentions that this is an example of how colonial
planning was only partially implemented by the effects of the negotiations took place
between the French and the local people. Davie continues that even during the
colonial period, the Lebanese were not passive receivers of Western planning
models. Instead they negotiated about how the models would be implemented
according to their interests (Davie 2000, 2).
The last map of Beirut to be analyzed in the study is the one which was prepared by
Bureau Topographique des Troupes Françaises du Levant in French and published by
Service Geographique de l’Armée in 1936. The map was prepared after the plan of
Danger that the outcomes and the differentiations from the Plan Danger were studied
by the help of this map. The star shaped square was partly constructed in the city
center. Ma’arad Street constituted the base route of the square plan from north to
south (Figure 3.16). The east-west route and the diagonal routes were not constructed
but the orientation of the buildings in the center of the square gives the form of a
star-shaped pattern. Allenby Street connects the square to the sea to the north.
Although the Place d’Etoile was connecting to the sea the major avenue proposed by
Danger which was connecting the Martyr’s Square to the sea was not constructed as
can be seen from Figure 3.18. Danger’s proposal of different urban centers was also
not achieved. The same tendency on going along the main streets as was the
tendency observed between 1841 and 1876 has also continued in the urban pattern.
The wider circle drawn for established areas for 1873 in Figure 3.12 became high
density residential areas in the twentieth century and spread within a wider circle.
In the late nineteenth century, Ottoman modernization activities and the impact of
European influence accelerated Beirut’s rise, and the city became the main port on
the Eastern Mediterranean. For the urban transformation of Beirut there was not a
lack of construction activities in the Ottoman era but a lack of planning laws and
regulations, on the other hand there was not a lack of planning laws and regulations
during the French Mandate but the failure of implementation.
Figure 3.15 Main Streets of the City Center of Beirut.
Based on the 1936 map of Beirut.
11 2
Figure 3.16 Place d’Etoile from
Danger Plan of Beirut.
Figure 3.17 Place d’Etoile from 1936
Map of Beirut.
11 3
Figure 3.18 The Bourj Axis.
The Danger Plan for The Bourj axis is on the left.
The 1936 Map for the location of the Bourj axis is on the right.
Source: Gavin and Maluf 1996.
Figure 3.19 Danger Plan, 1931.
114
115
Prepared by Bureau Topographieque des Troupes Françaises de Levant, November 1936.
Figure 3.20 Map of Beirut, 1936.
Source: Davie, Michael 2006.
Figure 3.21 Beirut in 1840s. Drawing by Max Schmidt.
The Island Castle (left), quay (center), and western defenses (right).
Source: Davie, Michael 2006.
Figure 3.22 Bab el Derkeh from inside the walls in 1830s. Engraving by Leon …
11 6
Source: Debbas 2001, 99.
Figure 3.23 Beirut Panorama from Ras Beirut in 1842. Gravure by George
Skene Keith.
Figure 3.24 Ain el-Mreisseh area, east of Ras-Beirut, 1897. Photograph by Adrien
Bonfils.
El-Mreisseh Mosque seen in the photo and the Campus of the Syrian Protestant
College [American University of Beirut] is seen in the background.
11 7
Source: http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/jafet/moore/24.html (28.08.2006)
Figure 3.25 View of Ain el-Mreisseh Area from the Tower of Syrian Protestant
College, 1894. Photograph by Dr. Franklin T. Moore.
Source: Debbas 2001, 134.
Figure 3.26 Panoramic Photograph of Achrafieh Quarter, 1870. Photograph by Felix
Bonfils.
11 8
Figure 3.27 Postcard of Rue-Echrefie.
Source: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/700/760/769/old_beirut/Hotel_dOrient.jpg
(28.08.2006)
Figure 3.28 Postcard of Hotel d’Orient.
11 9
Source: Gavin and Maluf 1996, 89.
Figure 3.29 Postcard of Khan Antoun Bey Square.
Source: Gavin and Maluf 1996, 74.
Figure 3.30 View of Khan Antoun Bey Square. Anonym Photograph.
12 0
Source : Debbas 2001, 84.
Figure 3.31 Place des Canons, c.1900. Photograph by Eric Matson.
Source: Debbas 2001, 85.
Figure 3.32 Place des Canons, c.1890. Anonym Photograph.
12 1
Source: SOLIDERE 1994c, 15.
Figure 3.33 Postcard of Place des Canons.
Figure 3.34 Postcard of Grand Serail (Imperial Barracks).
Serail is on the left. The Ottoman Military Hospital is on the background.
12 2
Source: Debbas 2001, 89.
Figure 3.35 Beirut view from Grand Serail, 1902. Photograpf by Sarrafian Bros.
Source: Gavin and Maluf 1996, 25.
Figure 3.36 Postcard of Grand Serail and the Clock Tower.
12 3
Source: SOLIDERE 1994c, 22.
Figure 3.37 Postcard of Souk el Gemil.
Source: SOLIDERE 1994c, 21.
Figure 3.38 Weygand Street.
12 4
Source: Khalaf and Kongstad 1973a.
Figure 3.39 A villa on Bliss Street.
Source: Debbas 2001, 117
Figure 3.40 Bliss Street, c. 1910. Anonym Photograph.
12 5
Source: Khalaf and Kongstad 1973a.
Figure 3.41 The intersection of Abdul Aziz and Bliss Streets, c. 1900.
Hospital Compound is on the right.
Source: Khalaf and Kongstad 1973a.
Figure 3.42 Hamra Street, c. 1900.
12 6
Source: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/700/760/769/old_beirut/Avenue_des_
Francais.html (20.08.3006).
Figure 3.43 Postcard of Avenue des Français.
Source: SOLIDERE 1994c, 20.
Figure 3.44 Postcard of Rue Bab Idriss.
Photograph of the Street leading from bab Idriss to the Souks Area.
12 7
Source: Gavin and Ramez 1996, 72.
Figure 3.45 Postcard of General Foch Street
Source: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/700/760/769/old_beirut/35.html
(20.08.2006).
Figure 3.46 Postcard of Allenby Street.
12 8
12 9
CHAPTER 4
4. CONCLUSION
The change in the articulation of trade routes changed the form of urban hierarchy;
shifting the major cities from inland areas to coastal areas. Before the nineteenth
century the major cities were the inland cities. The caravan routes determined the
major cities. They acted as trade centers and they were the dominant political and
economic centers. In the eighteenth century, the invention of steam engine started the
change in the trade routes and in the nineteenth century steamships were started to be
used widely in transportation. The port cities with suitable ports for steamships
became major trade centers and supported with the railway lines connecting the
inland production centers directly to the ports. Railroads working with the ports
changed the transportation system in the nineteenth century which resulted in the
change of urban hierarchical pattern. During the nineteenth century while the inland
production centers stagnated, the port cities gained importance and became political
and economic centers having close relations with the European countries.
The growing importance of Beirut constituted a typical example for the nineteenth
century Ottoman port cities and the relations of the city with the European countries
especially in the economic sphere made the city one of the most dynamic and active
city in the eastern Mediterranean. This dynamism which started in the nineteenth
century survived with the city and Beirut preserved its being the most important
political and economic center of the region. Besides these functions the city also
gained new functions, like becoming the cultural and educational center of the
13 0
region, with its existing dynamism and the city turn out to be a scene for the whole
world.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century Beirut was an insignificant port city but by
the end of the century the city became a leading trade center on the Eastern
Mediterranean. Beirut’s improvement was linked to the changes in international trade
routes and in the changing balance of power. Technological revolution in Europe, the
growth of Mediterranean trade, the advances in the steamships, and improved regular
communications with the west were the facts that promoted the growth of the
seaports when compared with the growth of the inland cities. Beirut became one of
the centers of the new trading network and became one of the major cities in the
urban hierarchy with its role.
During the nineteenth century, the relationship between Beirut and the inner region
of the country changed. Beirut and the interior regions were always dependent on
each other and they became more dependent by the economic and political changes
during the times of European influence. This growing interdependence then turned
into Beirut’s dominance over the Mountain which was the opposite in the previous
centuries and the urban growth of Beirut started.
Urban growth was accelerated by the movement of the rural population to the towns
by the pull of urban factors and by the push of rural factors. The pull factors were the
increasing opportunities in work and education in Beirut with the increasing trade
activities and foreign influence in the city. The push factors were the sectarian and
religious struggles between the Maronites and Druzes in the Mountain and economic
decline with the declining traditional production of silk.
13 1
Beirut was a cosmopolitan city from the beginning of its history. But in the
nineteenth century this cosmopolitan structure changed its balance in favor of
Christians. Maronites escaping from the struggles in the Mountain and Christians
coming from Europe for conducting business were much more than the Muslims
migrating to Beirut for increasing opportunities in the city. This changing
demographic structure showed its effects on the urban pattern.
The declaration of Tanzimat Reforms in 1839 also signified a turning point in the
organization of the cities, transforming the urban layout in line with the modern
urban planning. The first results of Tanzimat Reforms were seen in port cities, as the
state was closely interested in changing their physical features and their functioning
by various laws and regulations to cope with the west. The western support and
influence was also in action in this change process.
The creation of a new city center or in the case of Beirut creation of new functions
and spatial formations in the existing city center is the first outcome of both the
western influence and Tanzimat Reforms. The introduction of new financial
activities and services with the increasing western modes of life and the introduction
of new administrative buildings with the results of the reforms brought the need for
new constructions and transformation of the existing buildings, like the changing
functions of the khans, in the city center of Beirut. The location of the main central
district of Beirut did not change. While new modes were needed the traditional
pattern transformed according to the new demands. Only the traces of the old pattern
were observed then. By the beginning of the twentieth century the city center was
torn down to establish a new western pattern which demolished the whole traditional
pattern. The western pattern of the era survived in today’s Beirut although the city
has seen many devastating wars. The reconstruction of the city center in 1990s
followed the same path with the western models applied in the beginning of the
twentieth century. The reconstruction of the city center, especially the formation of
13 2
Place d’Etoile, followed the same rules with the Danger Plan proposed in 1931.
Besides it was applied better than it was applied in 1931. The city of Beirut chose to
adopt the western modes of design in their city center instead of the traditional
pattern.
On the urban pattern another direct result of the increasing foreign population in
Beirut in the nineteenth century was the creation of the new residential areas. With
the establishment of the Syrian Protestant College (American University of Beirut) in
Ras-Beirut area, district of Hamra became one of the prominent residential areas of
Beirut including a college and a hospital. This formation had its impacts in today’s
Beirut that Hamra prospered and turned into a secondary central business district.
In addition the western modes of life introduced in the nineteenth century had effects
on the street pattern and on the construction of specific buildings. This introduction
was also made by the regulations of the Tanzimat Reforms but as they can be
understood as the outcomes of the western influence in the empire, the aims and the
results were complementary. Building of new wide boulevards in Haussmanian style,
supported by the tramway lines constituted the backbone of the new transportation
system of the era, reflected the western modes and showed the application of
Tanzimat Reforms. The constructions of big monumental buildings like the imperial
barracks, the military hospital, and the clock tower were also the direct results of the
reforms that confirmed the existence of the Ottoman Governance in the city. These
buildings were the common features of the Ottoman cities that their existence in
today’s Beirut is one of the symbols of the Ottoman Empire that can be traced.
The city of Beirut had a very significant situation as can be seen in today’s events.
The stabilization still was not achieved in the formation of the urban form as the torn
downs continue. The city of Beirut faced many devastating events in its history that
the city has been composed of many layers especially in the central district of the
13 3
area. The ruins of the Roman era, few structures of the Ottoman era and the spatial
formations of the French Mandate era can be traced in the central district. So this
thesis tries to present a study how a study of transformation of urban pattern in
history is studied in cities that the evidences should be traced that are not alive or
preserved. Although the wars and events were the reasons for not preservation, the
destruction of the city started in the beginning of the twentieth century during the
Ottoman rule. The city center was torn down to build wide boulevards of European
style. So the forms of the nineteenth century that this study based its facts started to
disappear by the beginning of the twentieth century.
The urban transformation of Ottoman port cities within the case of Beirut is tried to
be examined in this thesis in a time period of a century starting from the second
quarter of the nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Although it’s traditional Ottoman urban fabric has been greatly changed within this
time period Beirut mostly preserved the heritage of the western impacts.
In this study the impacts of European economic intervention and Ottoman Tanzimat
Reforms constituted the main effects for change in the changing urban hierarchy in
and in the transformation of the urban pattern. In a further study an analysis of
influence of the social structure of Beirut can be examined. The multi-cultural social
structure of Beirut, which constitutes a specific situation, could have effects on the
changing urban structure of the city and the neighborhoods. The presence of a local
population consisting of various sects; Shiites, Sunnis, Greek Orthodox, Greek
Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Druzes, and Jews and during the nineteenth century
the accumulation of Protestant Christian population with the increasing migration
from European countries constituted this specific situation of Beirut. The indications
of the effects of this multi-cultural situation in forming of new neighborhoods and on
the physical formations of these neighborhoods can be traced in the nineteenth
13 4
century to analyze its effects on the present formation of the urban social and
physical pattern.
13 5
REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, Janet. 1980. Rabat: Urban Apartheid in Morocco. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Aktüre, Sevgi. 1981. 19. Yüzyıl Sonunda Anadolu Kenti Mekansal Yapı
Çözümlemesi. Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.
_____. 1985. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Taşra Kentlerindeki Değişimler. In Tanzimat’tan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Barakat, Liliane Buccianti. 2004. Beirut – A City With So Many Faces. Dela 21:
485-93.
Baedeker, Karl. 1876. Palestine and Syria: Handbook for Travellers. Leipsic: Karl
Baedeker Publisher.
_____. 1898. Palestine and Syria: Handbook for Travellers. 3rd ed. Leipsic: Karl
Baedeker Publisher.
Brown, Carl L., ed. 1973. From Medina to Metropolis: Heritage and Change in the
Near Eastern City. New Jersey: The Darwin Press.
Cem, İsmail. 1974. Türkiye’de Geri Kalmışlığın Tarihi. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
CERMOC (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur le Moyen-Orient Contemporain).
1995. Cartographie de Beyrouth: Supplement a la d’information. Beirut: Cermoc
– Al-Layali.
Costello, V. F. 1977. Urbanization in the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
13 6
Çadırcı, Musa. 1991. Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri’nin Sosyal ve
Ekonomik Yapıları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Davie, May. 1992. Etre Beyrouthin en 1800. Presented at Centre Et De Recherches
Sur l’Urbanisation Du monde Arabe Urbama – Tours Table – Ronde Sur La
Citadinite Fascicule 27, 29-30 June 1992. Available from: http://almashriq.hiof.
no/lebanon/900/902/MAY-Davie/Etre-beyrouthin-1800.html (31.08.2006).
_____. 1996. Beyrouth et ses Faubourgs (1840-1940): Une Integration Inachevee.
Beirut: Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Moyen-Orient Contemporain.
_____. 2000. Emerging Trends in Urbanism: The Beirut Post-War Experience.
Argue presented at Diwan al-Mimar Sessions, 20 April, Jordan. Available from:
http://www.csbe.org/Saliba-Diwan/essay1.htm (31.08.2006).
Davie, Michael F. 1987. Trois Cartes Inetides De Beyrouth: Elements
Cartographiques pour une Historie Urbaine de la Ville. Berytus: Archaeological
Studies 35: 141-64.
_____. 2006. Maps and the Historical Topography of Beirut. <http://almashriq.hiof
.no/lebanon/900/930/930.1/beirut/reconstruction/davie/Davie-text.html> (5 July
2006)
Debbas, Fouad C. 2001. Des Photographes A Beyrouth 1840 – 1918. Paris: Marval.
Dumont, Paul, and Georgeon François, eds. 1999. Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı
Kentleri. 2nd ed. Translated by Ali Berktay. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Encyclopedia of Islam. 1987. New York: E.J. Brill.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. 2000. Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler: Kent Mekanında Ticaret
Zanaat ve Gıda Üretimi 1550-1650. 3rd ed. Translated by Neyyir Kalaycıoğlu.
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları
13 7
Fawaz, Leila Tarazi. 1983. Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth-Century Beirut.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
_____. 1984. The City and The Mountain: Beirut’s Political Radius in the Nineteenh
Century as Revealed in the Crisis of 1860. International Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies 16 (4): 489-95.
Gavin, Angus, and Maluf, Ramez. 1996. Beirut Reborn: The Restoration and
Development of the Central District. London: Academy Editions.
Gerber, Haim. 1994. State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative
Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gibb, Sir Hamilton, and Bowen, Harold. 1950. Islamic Society and the West: A
Study of the ımpact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the Near East.
Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press.
Hanna, Nelly. 2005. Survey of Urban History of Arab Cities in the Ottoman Period.
Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3 (6): 89-102.
Hanssen, Jens. 2004. Review of Histoire de Beyrouth, by Samir Kassir. Electronic
Journal of Middle East Studies 4 (Fall): 120-5.
Hitti, Philip K. 1967. Lebanon in History: From the Earliest Times to the Present.
3rd ed. London: Macmillan.
Issawi, Charles. 1966. The Economic History of the Middle East 1800-1914.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
_____. 1969. Economic Change and Urbanization in the Middle East. In Middle
Eastern Cities: a Symposium on Ancient, Islamic, and Contemporary Middle
Eastern Urbanism, edited by Ira M. Lapidus. California: University of California
Press.
13 8
_____. 1977. British Trade and The Rise of Beirut, 1830-1860. International Journal
of Middle Eastern Studies 8 (1): 91-101.
_____. 1980. De-Industrialization and Re-Industrialization in the Middle East Since
1800. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 12: 469-79.
_____. 1982. An Economic History of the Middle East and North Africa. New York:
Columbia University Press.
İbrahim, Saad E. M. 1975. Over-Urbanization and Under-Urbanism: The Case of
The Arab World. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 6 (1): 29-45.
İnalcık, Halil. 1973. The Ottoman Empire, the Classical Age 1300-1600. New York:
Praeger Publishers
İnalcık, Halil, and Quataert, Donald. 1994. An Economic and Social History of the
Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasaba, Reşat. 1994. İzmir. In Doğu Akdeniz’de Liman Kentleri 1800-1914, edited
by Çağlar Keyder, Y. Eyüp Özveren, and Donald Quataert. Translated by Gül
Çağalı Güven. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,
Kassab, Sawsan Agha and Tadmori, Khaled Omar. 2002. Beyrouth and the Sultan:
200 photographs from the Albums of Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909). Beirut:
Editions Terre du Liban.
Khalaf, Samir, and Kongstad, Per. 1973a. Hamra of Beirut: A Case of Rapid
Urbanization. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
_____. 1973b. Urbanization and Urbanism in Beirut: Some Preliminary Results. In
From Medina to Metropolis: Heritage and Change in the Near Eastern City,
edited by L. Carl Brown. New Jersey: The Darwin Press.
13 9
Khoury, Philip S. 1984. Syrian Urban Politics in Transition: The Quarters of
Damascus During the French Mandate. International Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 16 (4): 507-40.
Kıray, Mübeccel B. 1998. Örgütleşemeyen Kent: İzmir. Ankara: Bağlam Yayınları.
McGee, T. G. 1967. The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of the Primate
Cities of Southeast Asia. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd.
McPherson, Kenneth. 2002. Port Cities as Nodal Points of Change: The Indian
Ocean, 1890s-1920s. In Modernity and Culture: From the Mediterranean to the
Indian Ocean, edited by Leila Tarazi Fawaz and C. A. Bayly. New York:
Colombia University Press.
Nagel, C. 2002. Reconstructing Space, Re-Creating Memory: Sectarian Politics and
Urban Development in Post-War Beirut. Political Geography 21: 717-25.
Ortaylı, İlber. 1974. Tanzimattan Sonra Mahalli İdareler 1840-1878. Ankara:
Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları.
_____. 2000a. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İktisadi ve Sosyal Değişim: Makaleler 1.
Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi Yayınları.
_____.2000b. Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri (1840-1880). Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Owen, Roger. 1981. The Middle East in the World Economy 1800-1914. New York:
Methuen.
Özveren, Eyüp. 1994. Beyrut. In Doğu Akdeniz’de Liman Kentleri 1800-1914, edited
by Çağlar Keyder, Y. Eyüp Özveren, and Donald Quataert. Translated by Gül
Çağalı Güven. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Raymond, Andre. 1995. Osmanlı Döneminde Arap Kentleri. Translated by Ali
Berktay. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
14 0
Reimer, Michael J. 1991. Ottoman-Arab Seaports in the Nineteenth Century: Social
change in Alexandria, Beirut, and Tunis. In Cities in the World System, edited by
Reşat Kasaba. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Salaam, Assem. 1970. Town Planning Problems in Beirut and Its Outskirts. In
Planning for Urban Growth: British Perspectives on the Planning Process,
edited by John L. Taylor. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Saliba, Robert. 2000. Emerging Trends in Urbanism: The Beirut Post-War
Experience. Paper presented at Diwan al-Mimar Sessions, 20 April, Jordan.
Available from: http://www.csbe.org/Saliba-Diwan/essay1.htm (31.08.2006).
_____. 2004. The Genesis of Modern Architecture in Beirut. In Architecture Re-
Introduced: New Projects in Societies in Change, edited by Jamal Abed. Geneva:
The Aga Khan Award for Architecture.
Salibi, Kamal S. 1965. The Modern History of Lebanon. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicholson.
Sarkis, Hashim. 2005. A Vital Void: Reconstructions of Downtown Beirut. In
Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster, edited by Lawrence J.
Vale. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Selman, Gül Güleryüz. 1982. Urban Development Laws and Their Impact on the
Ottoman Cities in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Master’s thesis,
Middle East Technical University.
Serof, Gregoire. 1983. Visions of the Beirut of Tomorrow. In Beirut of Tomorrow:
Planning for Reconstruction, edited by Friedrich Ragette. Beirut: American
University of Beirut.
Shareef, Malek Ali. 1998. Urban Administration in the Late Ottoman Period: The
Beirut Municipality as a Case Study, 1867-1908. Master’s Thesis, American
University of Beirut.
14 1
Shaw, Ezel Kural. 1992. Tanzimat Provincial Reform as Compared with European
Models. In 150. Yılında Tanzimat, edited by Hakkı Dursun Yıldız. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Shorrock, William. 1970. The Origin of The French Mandate in Syria and Lebanon:
The Railroad Question, 1901-1914. International Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 1 (2): 133-53.
Sjoberg, Gideon. 1960. The Preindustrial City, Past and Present. Glencoe: Free
Press.
Soffer, Arnon, and Stern, Shimon. 1986. The Port City: a Sub-Group of the Middle-
Eastern City Model. Ekistics 53 (316-317): 102-10.
SOLIDERE (Board of Founders of the Lebanese Company for the Development and
Reconstruction of Beirut Central District) 1994a. The Reconstruction of the Souks
of Beirut: Conditions and Program Kit. Beirut: Solidere
_____. 1994b. The Reconstruction of the Souks of Beirut: The Souks in Their
Memories. Beirut: Solidere.
_____. 1994c. The Reconstruction of the Souks of Beirut: Visual Survey Kit. Beirut:
Solidere.
Tekeli, İlhan. 1973. Evolution of Spatial Organization in the Ottoman Empire and
Turkish Republic. In From Medina to Metropolis: Heritage and Change in the
Near Eastern City, edited by L. Carl Brown. New Jersey: The Darwin Press.
_____. 1985. Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Kentsel Dönüşüm. In Tanzimat’tan
Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Uluengin, Mehmet Bengü, and Turan, Ömer. 2005. İmparatorluğun İhtişam
Arayışından Cumhuriyet’in Radikal Modernleşme Projesine: Türkiye’de Kentsel
Planlamanın İlk Yüz Yılı. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3 (6): 353-
436.
14 2
Yerasimos, Stefan. 1999. Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları Üzerine. In Modernleşme
Sürecince Osmanlı Kentleri, edited by Paul Dumont, François Georgeon. 2nd ed.
Translated by, Ali Berktay. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
_____. 2006. Doğu ve Güney Akdeniz Kentlerinin Batılılaşma Sürecinde Osmanlı
Etkisi. In Akdeniz Dünyası: Düşünce, Tarih, Görünüm, edited by Eyüp Özveren,
Oktay Özel, Süha Ünsal, Kudret Emiroğlu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
14 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
A. POPULATION OF BEIRUT
Table for Population of Beirut from the year 1784 to the year 1922 derived from
various sources by Leila Tarazi Fawaz as an appendix in her book Merchants and
Migrants in Nineteenth-Century Beirut, 1983, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14 4
14 5
14 6
14 7
14 8
APPENDIX B
B. BEIRUT MAP PREPARED BY A.L. MANSEL
After the land use survey drawn by Danish Acting Consul, Julius Loytved to be
presented to Sultan Abdul Hamid II in 1876, a new map was prepared by A. L.
Mansell from the Chart of Comm. based on the survey of Loytved before 1898 The
map shows the names of the quarters, hospitals, baths, colleges, consulates,
cemeteries, churches, monasteries, mosques, and post offices and agencies. The map
was published in 1898 as a guide in the second edition of Karl Baedeker’s Palestine
and Syria: Handbook for Travelers guide book. (Baedeker 1898, 316).
149
15 0
APPENDIX C
C. PLAN OF BEIRUT CITY TAKEN FROM THE ARCHIVES OF THE
OTTOMAN WATER COMPANY OF BEIRUT
Plan of Beirut City taken from the Archives of the Ottoman Water Company of
Beirut showing locations of twenty five police stations and two Ottoman cavalry
barracks. (Kassab and Tadmori. 2002, 50)
15 1
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder