250

IMPACT OF LAND USE CHANGES ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS
IN BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
AYŞEGÜL KELEŞ ERİÇOK
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
OCTOBER 2012
Approval of the thesis:
IMPACT OF LAND USE CHANGES ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS IN BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
submitted by AYŞEGÜL KELEŞ ERİÇOK in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Canan ÖZGEN _____________________
Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Melih ERSOY _____________________
Head of Department, City and Regional Planning
Prof. Dr. Numan TUNA _____________________
Supervisor, City and Regional Planning Dept., METU
Examining Committee Members
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Anlı ATAÖV _____________________
City and Regional Planning Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Numan TUNA _____________________
City and Regional Planning Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Gül ASATEKİN _____________________
Architecture Dept., Bahçeşehir University
Prof. Dr. Ruşen KELEŞ _____________________
Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University
Prof. Dr. Zuhal ÖZCAN _____________________
Architecture Dept., Çankaya University
Date: October 5, 2012
iii
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 : Ayşegül Keleş Eriçok
Signature :
iv
ABSTRACT
IMPACT OF LAND USE CHANGES ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS IN BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
Keleş Eriçok, Ayşegül
Ph.D., Department of City and Regional Planning
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Numan Tuna
October 2012, 208 pages
Historic commercial centres are subject to continuous change and transformation due to the changing socio-economic and cultural structure and relations of production and consumption. Organized within a traditional structure, these spaces have survived until today with their altering meanings and different identities as well as the restructuration they went through because of the socio-economic transformation processes. Besides, they are not only shopping areas or consumption spaces but also urban areas with a traditional style of manufacture and crafts. Theoretical discussions on the conservation of historic city centres focus on issues such as integration of city centres into contemporary life with functions that do not have adverse effects on the authentic characteristics of historic streets and urban fabrics, the role of new functions, activities and structures in the historic fabric, and participation in the conservation process.
Historic buildings adopt functions that are different from their original functions due to changing life styles. Having functioned in a well-organized order and shaped by the socio-cultural and economic structure of their eras, they are subject to interventions due to the functions required by the present conditions, such as the addition of a mezzanine or the establishment of a connection between spaces. As a result of these interventions, the
v
original plan schemes and authentic characteristics of historic buildings have changed. This thesis aims at identifying the types of commercial functions that intervene into the authentic design characteristics of commercial buildings located in the historic commercial centre. To this end, the Commercial Centre of Bursa was chosen as the case and the change in the functions of the hans located in this area was examined in detail.
Keywords: Historical City Centre, Historical Commercial Buildings, Concervation, Authenticity, Bursa Hanlar District
vi
ÖZ
BURSA TARİHİ TİCARET MERKEZİNDE ARAZİ KULLANIM DEĞİŞİMLERİNİN TARİHİ YAPILARIN ÖZGÜN NİTELİKLERİNE ETKİSİ
Keleş Eriçok, Ayşegül
Doktora, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Numan Tuna
Ekim 2012, 208 sayfa
Tarihsel süreçte değişen sosyo-ekonomik ve kültürel yapı ve farklılaşan üretim-tüketim ilişkiler nedeniyle tarihi ticaret merkezlerinde sürekli bir değişim ve dönüşüm yaşanmaktadır. Bu mekanlar geleneksel bir düzene göre örgütlenmiş, değişen anlamları ve farklı kimlikleri ile ve ayrıca sosyo-ekonomik dönüşüm süreçlerinin etkisiyle yeniden biçimlenerek çağımıza ulaşmış alanlardır. Ayrıca söz konusu mekanlar sadece alışverişin ya da tüketimin gerçekleştiği alan değil, geleneksel tarzda üretimin ve zanaatın var olduğu bir kent mekanı niteliği taşımaktadır. Tarihi kent merkezlerinin korunmasına ilişkin teorik tartışmalar, tarihi yapıların oluşturdukları sokaklar ve kentsel dokunun özgün niteliklerini bozmayacak işlevlerle çağdaş yaşamla bütünleştirilmesi, tarihi dokuda yeni işlevlerin, aktivitelerin ve yeni yapıların rolü, koruma sürecine katılım gibi konular üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır.
Tarihi yapılar, değişen yaşam biçimi nedeniyle ilk yapılış amaçlarından farklı bir işlev yüklenmektedirler. Geçmişte iyi örgütlenmiş bir düzen içinde çalışan ve ait oldukları çağın sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik yapısına göre biçimlenen bu yapılara, günümüz koşullarında yer alan bazı fonksiyonların gereksinimlerine göre, ara kat eklenmesi, mevcut mekanlar
vii
arasında bağlantı kurulması gibi müdahaleler yapılmıştır. Bu müdahaleler sonucunda tarihsel değeri olan yapıların özgün plan şemaları ve mekânsal özellikleri değişmiştir. Bu tez çalışması ile tarihi ticaret merkezinde yer alan ticaret yapılarının özgün tasarım niteliklerine müdahale eden ticari fonksiyon türlerinin tespit edilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bunun için Bursa Tarihi Ticaret Merkezi örnek çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiş ve çalışma alanında yer alan mevcut hanların süreç içindeki işlev değişimi detaylı olarak incelenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tarihi Ticaret Merkezi, Tarihi Ticaret Yapıları, Koruma, Özgünlük, Bursa Hanlar Bölgesi.
viii
To Esen Bahar, meaning of my life…
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Numan Tuna, for his guidence and patience during this study. I would also like to thank my jury members, Prof. Dr. Gül Asatekin for her valuable critiques and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Anlı Ataöv for her supports and contributions. I extend my thanks to other committee members Prof. Dr. Ruşen Keleş and Prof. Dr. Zuhal Özcan who made meaningful suggestion for this dissertation.
In addition, I would like to thank for Assoc. Prof. Dr. Özcan Altaban and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emre Madran from METU provided valuable critiques and insights during the different stages of the study.
I should also express my appreciations to all people who support me technically or by providing documentary for the study. Especially, Ayşe Işık, Birben Durmaçalış and Aziz Elbas from Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, Serpil Arık and Umut Ünsal Göktaş from Bursa Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation, Selda Savcı from Osmangazi Municipalty provided information, opportunities and experiences to complete analytical studies.
I express my sincere thanks to Sübhan Nakiboğlu and Ali Akkuş for their support to make a survey in study area. I send my special thanks to Melike Kuş and Duygu Toprak because of their translation supports. I also gratefully thanks to Ufuk Poyraz because of his technical assistance when my computer crashed. Special thanks go to administrative staff of Department of City and Regional Planning for their assistance and patience during official paperwork of the dissertation.
Utmost thanks go to Prof. Dr. Tansı Şenyapılı for encouraging me to completing this study and for sparing time whenever I was in need to talk something else than dissertation. Times
x
I have spent together with her will be the most memorable moments of this dissertation period.
Special thanks go to Süphan Nakiboğlu, I am indebted her for valuable comments, support, kind help and moral support during all stages of the thesis. In addition, special thanks to all of my friends, especially to, Burçin Güzel, Asiye Parlak Rakap, Açalya Alpan, Derya Baykara and Ceren Gamze Yaşar for the valuable moral support during all stages of the thesis. I would also thank to my all roommates, Tolga Levent, Sinan Burat, Yasemin Sarıkaya Levent, Burcu Özdemir Sarı, Suna Senem Yaşar, Gül Tuçaltan, Melih Gürçay and Cihan Erçetin, for their quiet patience and kind heartedness by sharing Room No: 305.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to express my endless gratitude to my family for their endless support. I offer sincere thanks for their unshakable faith in me. I would like to express my greatest debt, which is to my parents, Aysel and Hasan Keleş, my brother Arif and Utku, my sister Meryem and Ayşe, and my nieces Ceren, Ceyda, Ceylin, and my aunts also, for their support, trust and self-sacrifice throughout my life. I also thank to my grandmother Naciye and grandfather Haydar Sayıner for their spiritual support and prayer form my happiness in my life. Last but not least, I am also grateful to my husband Nüzhet Berk and my loving daughter Esen Bahar, meaning of my life, for their love and patience. I love my preciouses and thank God for giving me such a perfect family. This dissertation is dedicated in memory of my grandmother, Naciye Sayıner.
This study was supported by the State Planning Organization (DPT) Grant No: BAP-09-11-DPT-2002K125/510.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xvii
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Problem Statement.................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Conceptual Framework of the Study ........................................................................ 4
1.3. Theoretical Delimitations of the Study ..................................................................... 8
1.4. Research Methodology of the Study ........................................................................ 9
1.5. Content of the Study .............................................................................................. 11
2. CHANGE OF FUNCTIONS IN HISTORICAL CITY CENTRES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AUTHENTICITY............................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Historical Development of a City Centre .................................................................. 14
2.1.1. Identification of the Historic Commercial Centre of the Ottoman City .......... 20
2.1.2. Commercial Structures that Comprise the Ottoman City Centre ................... 22
2.1.2.1. Shop .................................................................................................. 22
2.1.2.2. Bedesten ............................................................................................ 23
2.1.2.3. Han and Kervansaray ......................................................................... 25
2.1.2.4. Covered Bazaar .................................................................................. 28
2.1.2.5. Bazaar ................................................................................................ 29
2.1.2.6. Arasta ................................................................................................ 29
2.2. Evaluation of the Authenticity Characteristics of the Historical City Centre ............. 30
2.2.1. Authenticity in Urban Conservation .............................................................. 31
xii
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 38
3.1. Framework of the Study Area (Bursa Historical City Centre) .................................... 38
3.2. Methods of Data Collecting .................................................................................... 41
3.2.1. Archive Study ............................................................................................... 41
3.2.2. Land Use ...................................................................................................... 43
3.2.3. Deep Interview............................................................................................. 44
3.2.4. Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 45
3.3. Methods for Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 46
4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE .................. 50
4.1. Historical Development Process of the City of Bursa ............................................... 50
4.2. Development Process of the Historical City Centre ................................................. 54
4.2.1. Development of the Historical City Centre before the 19th Century .............. 54
4.2.2 Development of the Historical City Centre in the 19th Century and at the begining of the 20th Century ......................................................................... 57
4.2.2.1 New Functions Incorporated in the Historical City City Centre ............. 57
4.2.2.2 Reformation of the Physical Structure in the 19th Century ................... 59
4.2.3. Development of the Historical City Centre in the 20th Century ...................... 60
4.2.3.1. New Functions Incorporated in the City Centre .................................. 62
4.2.3.2. Reformation of Functional Structure .................................................. 63
4.3. Planning Activities Which Affected the Development of Historical City Centre ........ 64
4.3.1. Planning Activities before the Republican Period .......................................... 65
4.3.1.1. Niebuhr Plan ...................................................................................... 66
4.3.1.2. Suphi Bey Map ................................................................................... 66
4.3.1.3. The Map Date in 1880 ........................................................................ 67
4.3.1.4. The Map Date in 1910 ........................................................................ 68
4.3.2. Planning Activities between 1923 and 1960 ................................................. 69
4.3.2.1. 1924 Lörcher Plan .............................................................................. 69
4.3.2.2. 1940 Prost Plan .................................................................................. 70
4.3.3. The Post-1960 Planning Period ..................................................................... 71
4.3.3.1. 1960 Piccinato Plan ............................................................................ 71
4.3.3.2. 1979 High Council of Immovable Historical Assets and Monuments (GEEAYK) Decisions ............................................................................ 73
xiii
4.3.3.3. 1989 Bursa Historical City Centre (Reyhan-Kayhan-Hanlar Districts) Conservation- Development Project ................................................... 74
4.3.3.4. Other Plans Affected the Historical City Centre .................................. 79
5. EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL FUNCTIONS ON AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS IN THE CASE OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE.................................................................................................................. 85
5.1. Spatial Organizations of Commercial Functions in the Historical City Centre in the Historical Process ...................................................................................................... 86
5.1.1 Functional Changes during the Formation of the Historical City Centre.......... 86
5.1.1.1. Bazaars Active in the Food Trade Market ........................................... 87
5.1.1.2. Bazaars Active in the Textile and Clothing Market .............................. 87
5.1.1.3. Bazaars Active in Wood Processing .................................................... 90
5.1.1.4. Bazaars Active in Leather Processing .................................................. 90
5.1.1.5. Bazaars Active in Jewellery and Mine Processing and Weapon Production ......................................................................................... 91
5.1.2. Functional Change in the Historical City Centre Today .................................. 91
5.1.2.1. Bazaars Active in the Food Trade ....................................................... 92
5.1.2.2. Bazaars Active in the Textile and Clothing Market .............................. 95
5.1.2.3. Bazaars Active in Wood Processing .................................................... 96
5.1.2.4. Bazaars Active in Leather Processing .................................................. 97
5.1.2.5. Bazaars Active in Jewellery and Mine Processing and Weapon Production ......................................................................................... 97
5.1.2.6 The Other Functions in Historical City Centre Today ............................ 98
5.1.3. Evaluation of the Functional Changes in the Bazaar ...................................... 98
5.2. Impact of Changing Functions of the Hans on Historical Buildings ........................... 99
5.2.1. Koza Han .................................................................................................... 100
5.2.2. Emir Han .................................................................................................... 109
5.2.3. Eski İpek Han .............................................................................................. 116
5.2.4. Fidan (Mahmut Paşa) Han .......................................................................... 123
5.2.5. Geyve Han.................................................................................................. 131
5.2.6. Tuz Han ...................................................................................................... 134
5.2.7. Pirinç Han................................................................................................... 138
xiv
5.3. Evaluation of the Impact of Functional Changes on the Authentic Characteristics of Historical Buildings ................................................................................................. 142
6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 153
6.1. Significance of the Study....................................................................................... 159
6.2. Suggestion for Further Studies .............................................................................. 159
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 161
APPENDICES
A. LIST OF INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................... 172
B. PUBLIC SURVEY FORM ............................................................................................ 173
C. THE DISASTERS AFFECTING THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE ........................................................................................................... 176
D. SOME PHOTOS ABOUT KAPALIÇARŞI FIRE IN 1958 .................................................. 180
E. PLANNING HISTORY OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE ....................................... 182
F. SOME PHOTOS ABOUT BAZAARS IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD ................................... 187
G. THE SECTORAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF ARTISANS AND CRAFTSMEN IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD .................................................................. 191
H. SOME PHOTOS ABOUT BAZAARS TODAY ................................................................ 194
I. OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE ..................................... 198
J. SOME DECISIONS OF HANS OF BURSA COUNCIL FOR THE CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS ........................................................................... 199
CURRICULUM VITAE ......................................................................................................... 207
xv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 5.1. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Koza Han ................................................................................104
Table 5.2. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Koza Han ..................................................................................107
Table 5.3. Shops have a basement in Koza Han ................................................................108
Table 5.4. Shops have a mezzanine in Koza Han...............................................................108
Table 5.5. Shops covered riwaq in Koza Han ....................................................................109
Table 5.6. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Emir Han ................................................................................113
Table 5.7. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Emir Han ..................................................................................114
Table 5.8. Shops removing the main wall in Emir Han ......................................................115
Table 5.9. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Eski İpek Han ..........................................................................119
Table 5.10. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Eski İpek Han ............................................................................121
Table 5.11. Shops removing the main wall in Eski İpek Han ..............................................122
Table 5.12. Shops have a mezzanine in Eski İpek Han .......................................................122
Table 5.13. Shops have a basement in Eski İpek Han.........................................................123
Table 5.14. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Fidan Han ...............................................................................127
Table 5.15. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Fidan Han .................................................................................128
Table 5.16. Shops covered riwaq in Fidan Han ..................................................................129
Table 5.17. Shops have a mezzanine in Fidan Han ............................................................130
xvi
Table 5.18. Shops removing the main wall in Fidan Han ...................................................130
Table A.1. Disasters affecting the historical city centre ....................................................179
Table A.2. The sectoral distribution of major groups of artisans and craftsmen in the Ottoman period ..............................................................................................191
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1. The Athenian Agora ..........................................................................................15
Figure 2.2. The Forum in Rome...........................................................................................16
Figure 2.3. Bursa Historical City Centre in 20th Century ......................................................23
Figure 2.4. Mahmut Paşa Bedesten in Ankara .....................................................................24
Figure 2.5. Eski Bedesten in İstanbul...................................................................................25
Figure 2.6. Rüstem Paşa Kervansaray in Edirne ...................................................................26
Figure 2.7. Büyük Valide Hanı in İstanbul ............................................................................27
Figure 2.8. Covered Bazaar in İstanbul ................................................................................28
Figure 2.9. Sokullu Bazaar in Lüleburgaz .............................................................................30
Figure 3.1. The Location of the Study Area within the City of Bursa ....................................39
Figure 3.2. Bursa Historical City Centre ...............................................................................40
Figure 3.3. Screen capture from the database ....................................................................47
Figure 3.4. Hans in Study Area ............................................................................................48
Figure 4.1. Bursa Gravure ...................................................................................................51
Figure 4.2. Development of Bursa Historical City Centre before 19th Century ......................56
Figure 4.3. Development Activities in the 19th Century .......................................................61
Figure 4.4. Uzun Çarşı in 2010 ............................................................................................63
Figure 4.5. Kapalıçarşı in 1960 ............................................................................................64
Figure 4.6. 1767 Niebuhr Plan ............................................................................................66
Figure 4.7. Suphi Bey Map ..................................................................................................67
Figure 4.8. The Map Date in 1880 .......................................................................................68
Figure 4.9. The Map Date in 1910 ......................................................................................69
Figure 4.10. Lörcher Plan ....................................................................................................70
Figure 4.11. 1940 Prost Plan ...............................................................................................71
Figure 4.12. Piccinato Plan .................................................................................................72
xviii
Figure 4.13. 1989 Bursa Historical City Centre (Reyhan-Kayhan-Hanlar Districts) Conservation- Development Project ...............................................................75
Figure 4.14. Boundry of Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan .75
Figure 4.15. 1976 Master Plan ............................................................................................80
Figure 4.16. 1984 Master Plan ............................................................................................80
Figure 4.17. 1995 Master Plan Revision .............................................................................81
Figure 4.18. 1/25.000 Scale Central Planning Area Master Plan ..........................................82
Figure 4.19. 1/5000 scale Osmangazi Municipality Master Plan ..........................................83
Figure 5.1. Activity Areas Based on Functions of Bursa Historical City Centre in the 16th Century .............................................................................................................88
Figure 5.2. Development of Bursa Historical City Centre before 19th Century ......................93
Figure 5.3. Activity Areas Based on Functions of Bursa Historical City Centre in 2010 .........94
Figure 5.4. Ownership Pattern of Koza Han ......................................................................102
Figure 5.5. Koza Han Land Use in 2010 .............................................................................103
Figure 5.6. Ownership Pattern of Emir Han.......................................................................111
Figure 5.7. Emir Han Land Use in 2010 .............................................................................112
Figüre 5.8. Automobile repairmen situated in the Eski İpek Han at the beginnings of 1930s ..........................................................................................................117
Figure 5.9. Ownership Pattern of Eski İpek Han ................................................................117
Figure 5.10. Eski İpek Han Land Use in 2010 .....................................................................118
Figure 5.11. Ownership Pattern of Fidan Han ...................................................................125
Figure 5.12. Fidan Han Land Use in 2010 ..........................................................................126
Figure 5.13. Ownership Pattern of Geyve Han ..................................................................132
Figure 5.14. Geyve Han before restoration .......................................................................132
Figure 5.15. Geyve Han Land Use in 2010 .........................................................................133
Figure 5.16. Geyve Han after restoration ..........................................................................134
Figure 5.17. Tuz Han before restoration ...........................................................................135
Figure 5.18. Ownership Pattern of Tuz Han ......................................................................136
Figure 5.19. Tuz Han .........................................................................................................136
Figure 5.20. Tuz Han Land Use in 2010 .............................................................................137
Figure 5.21. Ownership Pattern of Pirinç Han ...................................................................139
Figure 5.22. Pirinç Han Land Use in 2010 ..........................................................................140
xix
Figure 5.23. Restaurant in Pirinç Han ................................................................................141
Figure 5.24. Jewellery shop removing the main wall in the ground floor of Emir Han ........144
Figure 5.25. Shops having a mezzanine in Koza Han..........................................................144
Figure 5.26. Restaurant in the ground floor of Koza Han ...................................................147
Figure 5.27. Jewellery maker in Ground Floor of Koza Han ...............................................147
Figure 5.28. Furniture shop in the Sipahi Bazaar ...............................................................148
Figure 5.29. Çengel Han floor plans ..................................................................................150
Figure 5.30. Suluhan in 2011 ............................................................................................151
Figure 6.1. Kemikli bedesten in Gaziantep ........................................................................154
Figure 6.2. Courtyard of Pirinç Han in 2012 ......................................................................154
Figure 6.3. Kızlağası Han in İzmir.......................................................................................155
Figure 6.4. Bakırcılar Bazaar of Şanlıurfa ...........................................................................157
Figure 6.5. Zincirli bedesten in Gaziantep .........................................................................158
Figure A.1. Kapalıçarşı in 1960 ..........................................................................................180
Figure A.2. Kapalıçarşı fire in 1962 ....................................................................................181
Figure A.3. Yeni Ant newspaper dated 25.8.1958 .............................................................181
Figure A.4. Tradesman of Bazaar ......................................................................................187
Figure A.5. Tradesman of Bazaar ......................................................................................187
Figure A.6. Bakırcılar Bazaar .............................................................................................188
Figure A.7. Yorgancılar Bazaar ..........................................................................................188
Figure A.8. Tradesman of Bazaar ......................................................................................188
Figure A.9. Tradesman of Bazaar ......................................................................................189
Figure A.10. Tradesman of Bazaar ....................................................................................189
Figure A.11. Tradesman of Bazaar ....................................................................................189
Figure A.12. Shoe Bazaar in 1894......................................................................................190
Figure A.13. İbrikçiler Çarşısı in 1913 ................................................................................190
Figure A.14. Ulucami and Pirinç Han in 1895 ....................................................................190
Figure A.15. Tuz Pazarı in 2006 .........................................................................................194
Figure A.16. Tuz Pazarı in 2006 .........................................................................................194
Figure A.17. Kozahan enterence in 2006...........................................................................195
Figure A.18. Yorgancılar Çarşısı in 2006 ............................................................................195
Figure A.19. Orhangazi Square in 2009 .............................................................................196
xx
Figure A.20. Emir Han in 2009 ..........................................................................................196
Figure A.21. Havlucular Çarşısı in 2010 .............................................................................196
Figure A.22. Kapan Han in 2010 ........................................................................................197
Figure A.23. Ownership Pattern of Bursa Historical City Centre ........................................198
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Historic urban fabrics are documents that show how and why past generations formed their environments in relation to their needs and preferences. All new construction activities improve the existing built environment and interpret it according to the prevailing conditions (Özcan 2009, 34). In this process, the physical structure changes as the socio-cultural and economic structures change. The spaces that are most affected by this change are urban centres.
In this process of change, the residential and commercial functions of the historic centre have changed, and new forms of use have emerged in line with new needs. Due to the changing lifestyles over time, some historic structures lost their original functions and were adapted to different uses. The loss of meaning of these old functions, increase in land prices, and the expenses brought about by conservation decisions have made generating economic resources through adaptive reuse the most common type of intervention (Fitch 1990, 21; Kuban 1990, 10).
Today, some functions damage historic buildings with their physical conditions and spatial qualities designed according to the requirements of their period. Based on this assumption, the main objective of this dissertation is to determine whether the type of retail trade uses in the historic buildings in historic city centres are compatible with the authentic characteristics of these buildings.
This introductory chapter of the dissertation details the problem of the dissertation, introduces the conceptual framework for defining the scope and theoretical delimitations of the study, and presents the research methodology and the content of the study.
2
1.1. Problem Statement
The spatial structures and dimensions of commercial buildings located in historic city centres are designed according to the requirements of the period in which they were constructed. Due to the changes in the socio-cultural and economic structure, some functions underwent changes and survived, while some others do not have any current use. Historic buildings that lost their functions in time are re-introduced to urban life with new functions that might have negative effects on their characteristics (Özcan 2009, 35).
Decisions on the protection and evaluation of the designated areas of urban heritage and handing them down to next generations are taken in accordance with Development Plan for Conservation based on Law No. 3386 and Law No. 5226 and Law No. 2863 on Conservation of Cultural and Natural Entities. Main functions such as residential and commercial uses in historical city centres are determined in the reconstruction plans for conservation, and urban design projects and decisions are made regarding their use and construction. In this process, some types of use give harm to the authentic characteristics of historical buildings as no descriptions and limitations are given in the urban design projects prepared in line with Development Plan for Conservation or tentative plans. The aim of this study is to detect these uses that damage the authentic characteristics of historical buildings.
For this purpose, the main research question and the assumptions of this dissertation are as follows:
Research question of the dissertation:
What types of functions are incompatible with the authentic characteristics of the historic buildings in historic commercial centres?
3
Hypothesis of the dissertation:
The physical structure and area of commercial buildings are shaped according to the needs of the time they are built. New commercial functions that emerged as a result of the changes over time and in line with the needs and requirements of contemporary lifestyles in historical trade buildings are not compatible with these buildings.
Main assumption of the dissertation:
 The increase in product variety and the change in exhibition and sales services resulted in physical changes in the structures.
Shops are the smallest spatial units that form the basis of commercial buildings. Historically, the increase in product variety and the emergence of showcases for displaying products resulted in changes in the physical structure of shops.
 Ground floors of commercial buildings are used extensively because of strong pedestrian connections.
The ground floors of the hans in the historic commercial centres are used more intensively as the pedestrian connection is strong, while the upper floors are used as storage or office space, or not used at all.
 Urban development for strengthening transport links in the historic commercial centres has damaged historic buildings.
The following sections present first the conceptual framework and delimitations of the dissertation, and second, the research methodology to be used to test the main assumption and to answer the research question.
4
1.2. Conceptual Framework of the Study
As the aim of this dissertation is to determine the impacts of the new functions assigned to historical buildings on the authentic characteristics of the buildings in the historical commercial centres, the literature is focused on studies on city centres in the field of urban geography and historical city centre conservation. In this dissertation, studies on conservation of historical city centres in the urban conservation field are analyzed. In these studies, institutional, financial and technical aspects of conservation of historical city centres are addressed. Furthermore, other studies on the authenticity of city centres evaluate the concept “authenticity” in terms of conservation of architectural characteristics and conservation of local characteristics.
Preservation of architectural heritage, historic fabric and natural beauties is the basis strategy in contemporary urban planning. After World War II, the plan on the reconstruction of cities prepared by the Council of Europe gave priority to preservation in programs and policies. In this process, European countries prepared national and international conservation laws for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. The requirement to transfer the historical and cultural assets to future generations at least with the historical characteristics and quality inherited from the past forms the basis of the ideas regarding preservation in the international platform (Keleş 2003, 98). Heritage is defined in the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe signed in Granada in 1985 as “remarkable structure groups in terms of monumental, archaeological, artistic, scientific aspects, historical sites, site areas” and it is emphasized that architectural heritage constitutes a cultural identity element and it is an inspiration and creativity source for today’s and future generations. According to the convention, a cultural heritage is composed of physical remains including:
“1. Monuments: all buildings and structures of conspicuous historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest, including their fixtures and fittings;
5
2. Groups of buildings: homogeneous groups of urban or rural buildings conspicuous for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest which are sufficiently coherent to form topographically definable units;
3. Sites: the combined works of man and nature, being areas which are partially built upon and sufficiently distinctive and homogeneous to be topographically definable and are of conspicuous historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest”1.
On the national scale, in accordance with Article 3 of Law No. 2863 on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage amended by Law No. 3386 and 52262:
“Cultural properties” are all on-ground, underground and underwater movable and immovable properties that are related to science, culture, religion and fine arts in the prehistoric and historic periods or of original value in terms of science and culture which have been subjects of social life in the prehistoric or historic periods.
According to the second part of the law describing the immovable cultural and natural heritage that should be protected:
“... kervansaray, han, baths and medrese... arasta, bedesten and kapalıçarşı... and other similar properties are examples of immovable cultural properties”.
Asatekin classified immovable cultural assets as:
“Immovable cultural properties are monuments (building groups) and conservation sites (areas to be protected). Monumental buildings can be classified according to their functions as religious buildings (temple, church, synagogue, small mosque and mosque, dervish convent, rock tomb…), educational buildings (medrese, school), commercial buildings (kervansaray, han, arasta, bedesten, kıraathane…), military structures (castles, city walls, towers, gunpowder factories, arsenals, bastions), hygiene buildings (bath), houses (large-scale houses; palace, pavilion, waterside house, kasr), other building types (drinking fountain, bridge, clock tower), traditional houses, building groups (social buildings)” (Asatekin 2004).
Architectural monuments that reflect the cultural values, lifestyles, social and economic levels of past societies have been influenced by the change in these conditions over time.
1 Granada Convension 1985, Article 1, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/121.htm, last accessed 4.12.9009
2 http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,14230/kultur-ve-tabiat-varliklarini-koruma-kanunu.html, last accessed 4.12.2009
6
While the architectural monuments that lost their original functions due to these changes are preserved, they are adapted to contemporary uses and used actively as a result.
Using architectural monuments according to changing needs and demands while protecting historical and cultural heritage has been one of the main topics of universal architecture. Assigning a new function to monuments different from their original functions has been done since ancient times. As stated in Article 5 of the Venice Charter with respect to functional transformation, “the conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Such use is therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted”3. With respect to the same subject, Article 4 of the Carta del Restauro states that “in the monuments that can be said to be living, the uses that are accepted are those not too far from their original functions which do not cause essential alterations to the building with the necessary adaptations” (Ahunbay 1999). Monumental buildings cannot be used according to their original functions due to the changing socio-economic order and the requirements of the present day.
According to the definition in the dictionary of social science terms, a function is “action type or types a structure can actualize and allowing the structure to be differentiated from other structures”4. Kuban described function as demands determined by requirements and their scheduling. According to him, function primarily means expediency of single or all structural elements (Kuban 2010, 21).
In this study, functions with spatial requirements that are not appropriate for spatial capabilities of the existing structure are defined as “incompatible use”. Compatibility of the function with the structure means compatibility of the new function both with the spatial characteristics of the structure and with the other functions within the structure and in the vicinity.
3 http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/, last accessed, 21.09.2009
4 http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/, last accessed, 03.01.2010
7
Unplanned development during the process of migration to cities after the 1950s, illegal housing and the increase of rent in the city centres damaged urban patterns and historical heritage in Turkey. Preservation is considered as preventing investment and spatial development of the cities. Furthermore, the idea of protecting the cultural heritage and making use of it by adapting to contemporary conditions at the same time was not seized. Urban renewal started in all urban areas, especially in city centres, along with the rapid population increase. Commercial buildings, small industries and storage facilities replaced dwelling areas in this transformation process. As a result, the population living in these areas left the city centre and a new social class, attracted by the new functions, settled in the centre. As a result of this functional change, city centre lost its unique characteristics in terms of both physical and socio-cultural aspects.
A new administrative centre emerged in the city alongside the traditional centre. Thus, there have been two centres close to each other in the city. Various explanatory theories on the structure of urban spaces, their development and transformation are proposed in the urban geography literature. Theories examining city centres aim at some generalization by examining different cities and city centres in different countries. These theories are grouped into three categories in the related literature. The first group is the classical theories on urban space. Classical theories examined the urban centre and its functions within the context of regional hierarchy of the city, where the centre is located. The second one is urban ecology theories on the spatial organization of the city. Urban ecology theories determine the location of the city centre with reference to other usages in the city and try to explain by defining the relationships among different usages located in the city. The third one is urban economy theory (Johnson 1972, Herbert and Thomas 1990, Hall 1998, Cadwallender 1996).
Studies on central business districts within urban research emerged as an area of interest of urban geography in the 1950s and the research activity increased in the 1960s and the
8
1970s5 (Seymen 1988, 6). The studies on central business districts in the relevant literature could be summarized according to their focuses as follows:
 Studies on the physical-spatial structure of the central business districts and transition areas, and processes of change and transformation of these structures,
 Studies on the concepts and definitions related to central business districts and transition areas,
 Studies on the detailed examination of the functions in central business districts and transition areas,
 Studies on the relationships between the city and the city centre,
 Studies on the relationships between the city centre and the regions within the impact area of the centre,
 Studies on the examination of the historic city centres and urban historic areas within the scope of conservation and renewal plans.
1.3. Theoretical Delimitations of the Study
The commercial buildings whose the dimensions and spatial structures were determined by the conditions of the period in which they were built are used for different purposes today. As this dissertation seeks to determine whether the current functions assigned to historic buildings are appropriate for the original characteristics of these structures, the focus is on the functions of commercial buildings and the effect of these commercial functions on historic buildings while examining the changes in land use.
There is no sufficient spatial data regarding the buildings in the study area. Although there are various studies focusing on the hans and bazaars located in the commercial centre, the basic inventory studies are multipartite and incomprehensive. In these studies, there is different information regarding the dates of construction, functions, locations and names of
5 Research on central business districts made use of the theoretical framework of urban economy and urban land use. For more information, see: Harvey, D., (1973), Explanation in Geography, London, Carter, H., (1983), An Introduction to Urban Historical Geography, London.
9
the hans. This dissertation is based primarily on the information that takes registers as a reference.
As the ownership status of the shops is mainly private, taking pictures was not permitted. Thus, the identification of the interventions could not be supported with visual material.
This dissertation examines the effect of the function in the historic buildings, rather than the extensions to the historic buildings and their environs, on the original characteristics of the structures.
1.4. Research Methodology of the Study
The authenticity and integrity of historical centres decay in time as a result of the new functions they are assigned with during the process of changes in historical city centres which are incompatible with the building stock. Based on this hypothesis, the main purpose of the dissertation is to determine whether the use of historical buildings for retail trade is compatible with the authentic characteristics of the buildings.
The general research methodology of the dissertation is “Qualitative Research”. Qualitative research is described as an approach in which qualitative data collection methods such as observation, interviews and document analysis are used and a qualitative process is followed by presenting perceptions and events in their natural environment. In other words, qualitative research prioritizes the research on and the understanding of social phenomena in their respective environment, based on theory building (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2011, 39).
Qualitative research methodology embodies different strategies, such as ethnographic studies, phenomenology and case study. Yet, all of them have two common points: focusing on phenomena that occur in their natural settings and studying these phenomena in all their complexity (Leedy and Ormrod 2005, 133). Thus, the reason for selecting the case study research strategy among different strategies is that the case study research strategy
10
is useful to examine and evaluate single phenomenon at local level (Leedy and Ormrod 2005,133; Punch 2005, 144).
In line with the research methodology selected, the study is carried out in four stages:
▪ First, the changes in the functions in historical city centres were examined.
▪ Second, the development of the selected case, Bursa Historical Commercial Centre, was examined along with the unification of commercial buildings in the area in the historical process and the changes in their uses.
▪ Third, cluster analysis was made in order to determine whether commercial uses which were present in the area during the formation of the historical commercial centre are still present today.
▪ Lastly, the uses which damaged the authentic characteristics of the hans in the area were sought to be determined.
The study starts with defining the theoretical framework through reviewing and evaluating the broad literature on “change of functions in historical city centres within the context of authenticity”. The literature for defining the theoretical framework is composed of different ‘international documents’, including conventions, recommendations and resolutions prepared by international organizations such as ICOMOS and the Council of Europe, ‘concluding documents of international meetings’ organized as conferences, symposiums or workshops, and international and national ‘research’ on historical city centres, commercial buildings and authenticity in urban conservation. The theoretical study is conducted in two parts.
In the first section of the theoretical work, spatial characteristics and types of use of historical structures which emerged in the development process of the city centre are reviewed in the related literature. In the second section, the analysis parameters used to reveal the impacts of contemporary functions in the historical trade buildings on the authentic characteristics of the buildings in the study area are defined. Usages considered inappropriate for the authentic characteristics of the historical trade buildings are defined based on the theoretical study and data obtained in the field work.
11
1.5. Content of the Study
Following the introduction chapter, Chapter 2 presents, within the framework of authenticity in urban conservation sites, theoretical discussions regarding land use changes in historical city centres. The purpose of this section is to describe the criteria that can test the impacts of changing commercial functions in historical trade centres as a result of changing consumption behaviours in historical trade buildings in the historical process, according to the concept of authenticity in urban conservation sites. For this reason, in the first part of this section, spatial structural changes in historical trade centres and changes in historical trade buildings in historical trade centres and the way they cluster are analyzed. Commercial buildings in Ottoman city centres are analyzed in detail as the study area is an Ottoman city.
In the second part, the criteria to detect the authenticity in urban conservation sites are evaluated within the context of international documents and studies of various researchers. As a result, the evaluation criteria to determine the level of damage given by commercial function types on the authentic characteristics of the historical trade buildings in the study area are described.
In Section 3, first, the reason to choose Bursa historical trade centre as the case study is explained and the boundaries of the study area are described. In the second part, the data collection methods used in the study are described. Finally, information on the analysis method to determine the impacts of the commercial functions on the authentic characteristics of the historical trade buildings is given.
In Section 4, the development process of Bursa historical trade centre is evaluated in three periods: development before the 19th century, development in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century and development after the second half of the 20th century. The way in which commercial buildings came together in the historical process and how their uses changed within the study area are also examined in the section about the development
12
process of the historical commercial centre. The process of change in the historical trade centre and planning activities that affected the city centre are examined also in this section.
In Section 5, the impacts of the functional changes on the authentic characteristics of the historical buildings in the study area are discussed. In this section, first, the coexistence of commercial functions in the historical trade centre is examined in two different periods: the 16th century when the historical trade centre was completed and at present. In the second part, the impacts of the commercial functions located in the actively-used hans in the study area on the authentic characteristics of the historical buildings are analyzed. As a result of the analysis, functions giving harm to the authentic characteristics of the historical trade buildings are determined.
In the conclusion section, the conditions necessary for the presence of uses which were identified as harmful to the original characteristics of buildings because of retail trade activities in historical commercial centres were discussed. The dissertation concludes by stating the significance of the study and giving some suggestions for further studies.
13
CHAPTER 2
CHANGE OF FUNCTIONS IN HISTORICAL CITY CENTRES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AUTHENTICITY
Urban space acquires different features over time through the changes in its social and economic characteristics and production and consumption structure. Urban centres and their environs are the spaces where these changes and transformations could be observed most clearly (Gökçe 2005, 73). Spaces in historical cities are shaped by the choices made in accordance with the requirements of the social and economic conditions of the era that they represent. In other words, these spaces are shaped by the choice regarding what function should be together or separate, which is related to the economic function of the city during that period.
Cities have undergone changes and transformation, and in this process, they have had a number of additional functions. Basic functions such as trade, management, entertainment and housing took place in the city in a specific order. Urban centres are the spaces where the basic functions defining the city like trade, management functions and urban services (entertainment, cultural functions, etc.) are met at the highest level. The city centre is formed around the point with highest accessibility where the transportation and communication axes juxtapose (Tekeli at all 1976, 39; Johnson 1972, 113). Throughout the stages of historical development of cities, the city centre has developed as the focal point, of the city and affected the formation and development of the spatial fabric. In this process, city centres have changed physically and functionally.
As a result of this change, commercial sites went under a change too. In this section, firstly transformation of commercial spaces in the city centre will be examined as the aim of this study is detection of usage types which are not appropriate for the authentic characteristics
14
of the building, among the functions located in the historical buildings. As the study area is an Ottoman historical city centre settlement, subjects of “how commercial areas in Ottoman cities were formed” and “what were the trade buildings and in which functional order they were built” were deeply examined. In the second part, approaches the authenticity concept is discussed in the context of international documents. In the evaluation part of this section, evaluation criteria to be considered in determination of harm given by historical function types on the authentic characteristics of the historical trade buildings are described.
2.1 Historical Development of a City Centre
Industrial revolution had been the breaking point that caused the changes in the city centre6. According to Sjoberg, cities are market places based on food products and raw materials in the pre-industrial period. In addition, these cities are centres of artisanal commodities (Kıray 1998, 9; Sjoberg 2002, 39). Besides, they fulfill important political, religious and educational functions (Sjoberg 2002, 39). As this period was prior to agricultural mechanization and transportation was based on people and animals, streets are organically shaped and wide just enough to let people and animals pass (Kıray 1998, 9). Buildings are low and tight. Specialization and division in economic life is present also in social life (Kıray 1998, 10). During this period, there is social differentiation in different neighborhoods or districts of cities7. Lower classes, and especially those outside the caste system, live in the fringe, far away from the places where important activities take place. Indicators of this differentiation are different ethnic groups living in separate neighborhoods, and various craftsmen (coppersmiths, blacksmiths, etc.) located in different places. Despite these distinctions, there is no differentiation in land use forms. Residential buildings are also used as workplaces (Carter 1983, 150-151). Religious buildings serve for education or even marketplace (Sjoberg 2002, 40; Kıray 1998, 10).
6 In the theoretical framework of Sjoberg, all urban forms until the 19th century are defined as pre-industrial cities. From the 19th century to the 1970s, instead, all cities of developed countries are industrial cities (Aslanoğlu 2000, 194 cited Sjoberg 1967). After 1975, global city emerged as a new spatial formation (Aslanoğlu 2000, 194 cited Friedman 1986).
7 In some cities (e.g. Fez in Morocco and Aleppo in Syria), these units are separated by walls with doors that are closed at night. The inhabitants of these areas reflect the strict social differentiation. Thus, ethnic groups inhabit different places and this separation is generally visible among professions some of which have ethnic characteristics (Sjoberg 2002, 39-41).
15
In the development process of city centres prior to the industrial revolution, the city centre emerged as the focal point of the city, the administrative centre, public space, gathering space, and the marketplace for the first time in Greek cities (Uysal 2004, 53). This centre is called “agora”8 (Figure 2.1). Agoras are open spaces located at the intersection of roads. Agoras served as commercial and production spaces (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 17).
Figure 2.1. The Athenian Agora (Carter 1983, 20)
The Roman forum is the equivalent of the agora (Uysal 2004, 54). The forum is the rectangular area surrounded by buildings in the city centre (Say Özer 1996). A well-organized road system complements the forum (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 17). As a result of the economic development, after the 6th century BC agoras became large-scale marketplaces (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 17). These areas have no religious function (Figure 2.2).
8 The city centre used to be defined only as the acropolis where religious functions were carried out. However, religion became independent from the state as industry and trade developed, and thus, administrative buildings were then situated in the agora instead of the acropolis.
16
Figure 2.2. The Forum in Rome (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Forumu, last accessed,
02.11.2011)
The development of the urban centre during the Ottoman period depends on the proximity
of the city to the trade routes. Mosques, baths, markets, hans and madrasas are together in
the city centre (Ergenç 1980, 105; Uysal 2004, 55).
The Ottoman city did not undergo a rapid change in the socio-economic and physical
structure throughout history (Aktüre 1978, 43). The change in the spatial structure of the
Anatolian-Ottoman city and the consequent change in its physical structure starting in the
17th century could be considered as an indicator of relationships between the socioeconomic
structure and organization. The 17th century is a turning point in terms of urban
organization in Anatolia. Celali revolts at the beginning of the century; looting, pillaging and
external pressures such as rural-urban migration caused the Anatolian city to embark upon
a rapid process of organizing to protect its integrity (Aktüre, 1978, 43). In the same period,
the changes in the organizational structure of the craft guilds affected urban development.
In this process of slow rate of urbanization, city centres are central market and trade spaces
where traditional craft-type small-scale production and trade activities are concentrated. As
there is no differentiation between the residential and commercial areas, the commercial
17
areas that constitute city centres are as well inhabited by those who are involved in management, governing and trade (Osmay, 1998, 139).
Until the effects of the industrial revolution crystallized, the markets had their medieval era characteristics (Kuban 2007, 156). Cities began to change due to industrialization. Unlike the previous trade-based structure, a new economic system based on industrial production and capital started to emerge in cities (Thorns 2004, 15).
In addition, from the mid-19th century, the Anatolian city had undergone a process of change due to the influence of external factors. Raw materials for production in cities started to serve for foreign markets rather than domestic markets, specifically agricultural products to meet fast-growing demand in Europe, which caused a significant change in inter-regional trade and in commodity flow relations and directions. This transformation in favor of agricultural products transformed the 19th century settlement system. The new public-induced administrative centre, new geometric-shaped spatial organizations as a result of the urban reforms made to avoid large-scale fires, and shops serving high income level generally owned by European traders engaged in foreign trade and their local mediators are the consequences of the changes in the spatial structure of the Anatolian city during this period (Aktüre, 1978, 5).
In the Republic Era, it is observed that the rate of urbanization and population increase is low, and that city centres are spaces that provide agricultural services, and to a limited extent, non-agricultural production services. In this process, agriculture-based small production activities constitute the most significant activity type of the traditional city centre. Certain activities located in the city tend to cluster. In general, groups belonging to the same income group or groups with similar needs are clustered together. As a result, there are two clusters of activities in the city centre9. The first is the “traditional centre10” for fulfilling the needs of the countryside and the low income groups of the city. These
9 The formation of two clusters is not realized in central activities that do not have direct relationship with the consumer. For instance, transportation and storage activities that serve both modern and traditional organizations in city centres are located close to the centre where it is easy to serve both types of organizations (Tekeli at all 1976, 53). Besides, personal service activities that have a direct relationship with the consumer, such as retail, trade, doctor, and lawyer are differentiated (Tekeli at all 1976, 54).
10 In the literature, both ‘traditional centre’ and ‘historical centre’ are used.
18
activities maintain the characteristics of the historical city centre. The second is the “modern centre” targeting the fulfillment of the needs of the higher income groups of the city11 (Tekeli at all 1976, 53). The new centre is the administrative centre. With this new centre, new elements are introduced such as the government office, city hall, railway and station building, and the courthouse, and the new centre became a centre of attraction for new types of services, banks, hotels and shops. Due to both functional integrity and the limits of the transportation and communication infrastructure, the location of these two centres is often very close to each other, or even intertwined. Traditional city centres are located in the region with hans and bazaars with craft-style production relationships, and retail and wholesale trade (Tekeli at all 1976, 55; Osmay 1998, 141). It maintains its organic link although it differentiates from the residential areas in the historical fabric of the city (Osmay 1998, 141).
In these periods, city centres faced a series of social and spatial transformations, started to gain new services and functions and to lose some functions. In addition to the administration and marketplace functions of the city centre, new functions, various services and several professions emerged in line with the emerging needs. The location of the industry has been in the centre or in areas close to the centre throughout the historical development of cities. Later, in the Five-Year Development Plan period after 1960 in Turkey, small production activities developed in the traditional business districts and proximate environs. The small production activities concentrated in the historical city centres in metropolitan areas developed by destroying their environs (Çetin 2011, 187). As a result, it was proposed to move them out of the centre based on the reason that they impair the appearance of the centre and pose danger (Tekeli at all 1976, 45).
The central commercial district12 of the city is generally the area where control and administrative activities are accumulated. Thus, banks, central administrative institutions, local administrative institutions (e.g. province, courthouse, and municipality) are located in the city centre (Carter 1983, 163). Moreover, there are professional offices such as lawyers and financial counselors that complement these services. These uses are generally together
11 In the modern centre, there are consumer goods fulfilling luxury and special needs, and offices of large companies.
12 The city centre is where the land prices are the highest as it is also the focal point selected as the location for various activities related to urban life (Tekeli at al 1976, 19).
19
with the structures called office buildings. The bigger the number of the offices in a centre the more developed the control function of that centre. As the city centre is also the information and communication centre, there are printing houses in the centre (Tekeli at all 1976, 45).
The historical city centre is the area where traditional activities are more frequent. As a result of the relationship of the city with the rural area, there are uses like cattle market, grain market, agricultural equipment and clothing (Tekeli at all 1976, 55; Cezar 1985). Due to technological developments over time, both the physical structure and way of use of the traditional centre have undergone changes. On the one hand the centre spreads outside the historical core; on the other hand, there are standard, fabricated consumption goods together with crafts.
The main transformations that took place in the central business districts in the 1970s were in the service and commercial sector. These sectors moved towards the new centres of the cities. In the city centres, instead, passages emerged as structures with several shops rather than individual shops to be able to afford the increasing land prices13. In this process, the buildings on the main streets in the city centres that were transformed and destructed and rebuilt were transformed into passages with commercial activities (Osmay, 1998, 143-145).
Following the 1980s, the weakening of the industrial and the tertiary sector led to the rise of the informal sector. Especially, firms operating in the sectors like automotive and textile started to focus on contract manufacturing. Some new economic activities have emerged in cities. “In cities such as Istanbul and Ankara, the share of service professions like peddlers, carriers, porters, simit sellers, scavengers, shoe shining, hawking and janitors” (Keleş 2002, 74). In this period, some sectors lost their importance. Instead, some sectors like tourism, finance and import-export have gained significance.
13 Passages – office buildings: Passages are specific structures formed by a number of offices gathered together. They have two main characteristics. First, several activities are together. Second, they carry the street space indoor alleys (Tekeli at all 1976, 43). Passages are the areas where products and services targeting certain income groups are together. Department stores emerged at the following stages of development.
20
The most important factor that changed within the new economic relationships has been the new consumption habits accompanying modern culture. Modern shops, entertainment places, cafes and theaters addressing the delivery of goods and services that fulfill emerging needs brought about the changing lifestyle begin are located in the city centre.
The changing consumption and shopping habits due to the Industrial Revolution and the increase in the urban population in the 19th century led to changes in commercial spaces as well. This change accelerated in the 20th century. In this process of change, while some functions in the city centre remained as they have been, some others changed and some were replaced by other functions. Moreover, commercial spaces have undergone transformations due to the changes in the socio-economic and cultural structure throughout history and technological developments.
This section first evaluates the spatial formation of the historical commercial centre of the Ottoman city. Afterwards, information about the commercial structures in the Ottoman city centre and plans is given.
2.1.1. Identification of the Historic Commercial Centre of the Ottoman City
In general, the centre of the Ottoman city is situated either at the foot of the castles or next to Byzantine cities. The city spreads through the streets that start at the gates of the walls (Pinon 1999, 167).
The basic principle of the Ottoman urban morphology is the division of the city into three functional areas: residential, commercial and religious-cultural activities (Cerasi 1999, 82; Tutal 1999, 244). According to Cerasi, the morphology and functional division of the Ottoman city is as follows:
“... residential units consisting of low-rise houses with pitched roofs in extensive gardens; mosques showing up with a dome or a minaret added next to the gable roof resembling the houses around, large gardens surrounded by walls of the city centre, the narrow and winding roads connecting the houses, small shops stacked on top of each other in the market place and the public and private structures coming into
21
focus with the single-storey buildings, domes, roofs, chimneys and riwaqs along the streets, the hans nearby, cemeteries with various kinds of trees , vegetables gardens adjacent to or inside the residential fabric, lodge structures with their green burial areas; the vaulted Orthodox church or monastery in pure Byzantine style completely in sharp contrast to official Ottomanism. All of these components constitute the structure of the Ottoman city where there is no sharp distinction between nature, rural area and urban area...”14 (Cerasi 1999).
The form of the Ottoman city is influenced by whether the commercial activities take place in the city or outside the city. The commercial activities in the city impact directly the formation of the city centre while the commercial activities taking place outside the city affects the relationship of the city with other cities (Tankut 1973; 775). The basic elements that make up the Ottoman city centre are the mosque15 (Özkaya 2008, 67), bedesten (Tankut 1973, 778; Cerasi 1999, 103; Ergenç 1980, 106) and the imaret (Ergenç 1980, 106). All the roads arriving in the city connect to each other in this area. The bedesten constitutes the main centre of the city (Cerasi 1999, 120). The shops around the bedesten follow a specific order. The higher the value of goods sold in the shop the closer it is to the bedesten. The core is formed by hans that have both accommodation and commercial functions (İnalcık 1969, 98; Ergenç 1980, 106). The circle around the core is occupied by shops with less value, and artisanal regions. The outer circle hosts, leather workshops and market areas (Cerasi 1999, 120). The bazaar16 is developed around the mosque and the bedesten and the shops are attached to or detached from them (Tankut 1973, 778; Kuban 2007, 602). There are hans which serve both for accommodation and trade around the bedesten (İnalcık 1969, 98; Ergenç 1980, 106). The wide street originating from the bedesten and oriented towards other focal points of the city is referred as the long bazaar. The long bazaar is the area in which all kinds of manufactured goods and services could be
14 “… geniş bahçeler içinde, kırma çatılı, az katlı evlerden oluşan iskan üniteleri; bir kubbeyle ya da çevresindeki evleri andıran beşik çatısının yanına eklenmiş minaresiyle kendini belli eden camilerin ortaya çıkışı, kent merkezinin duvarlarla çevrili büyük bahçeleri, içindeki evleri birbirine bağlayan dar ve dolambaçlı yolları, Pazar yerinde birbiri üzerine yığılmış küçük dükkanları ve caddeleri boyunca dizilmiş tek katlı, kubbeler, tavanlar, bacalar ve arkadlarla belirginleşen kamusal ve özel yapılar, civarda hanlar; çeşit çeşit ağacın bulunduğu mezarlıklar, evsel dokuya komşu yada onun içinde sebze bostanları, yeşillikler içinde yer alan hazireleriyle tekke yapıları; resmi Osmanlılığa tamamıyla kontrast saf Bizans üslubu ve tonozlu örtüsüyle Ortodoks kilisesi yada manastırı. Doğa, kır ve kentsel alan arasında kesin ayırıcı çizgiler olmayan Osmanlı kentinin strüktürünü bütün bu bileşenler oluşturmaktadır...”
15 The most important structures in the Ottoman city are mosques and madrasahs. Among the mosques, particular importance is of grand mosques where the Friday prayer is held (Özkaya 2008, 67). In addition to the mosques, there are other uses such as fountains, sadirvans, sebils, madrasahs, muvakkithane and libraries (Özkaya 2008, 67).
16 The Shariah and formal documents of the Ottoman Empire use the word “Suk-ı Sultani”16 instead of bazaar (çarşı). Derived from Persian “cihar-su” signifying four sides, çarşı in Arabic means “Sukk”, that is, purchase and sale area. Çarşı is a permanent market place surrounded on all four sides by shops and composed of streets. In the Ottoman period, all the area composed by the commercial units located atound the bedesten or the covered market is called a çarşı (Sakaoğlu ve Akbayar 1999, 175). In some regions, the word pazar is used instead of çarşı.
22
found in the city (Ergenç 1980, 106). In the streets connected to the long bazaar, there are groups of artisans each producing goods and services in different lines of business. Ergenç states that the location of the artisan bazaars in urban space should be explained by referring to the bedesten (Ergenç 2006, 97). Near the mosque, there are booksellers, binders, and leather dealers and slippers salesmen. Leather dealers are followed by weavers. Then there are carpenters, plumbers and coppersmiths. Farthest from the centre are artisans and blacksmiths. In the areas close to the urban gates, there are saddlers mostly serving villagers. Tanneries and dye houses are located out of the city and surrounded by potters (Ergenç 1980, 104; Faroqhi 1993, Oğuzoğlu 1987). In Ottoman cities, artisans in the same line of business are gathered in the same area. This space is usually referred to by the name of the profession – bazaar of jewelers, bazaar of coppersmiths, and bazaar of herbalists (Özkaya 2008, 74).
2.1.2. Commercial Structures that Comprise the Ottoman City Centre
There are generally two types of commercial activities in the Ottoman city (Tutal 1999, 245). The first one is buying and selling and storage of artisanal products in hans, bazaars and open-air bazaars. The second one is selling food in marketplaces. These marketplaces are established in the same area on certain days of the week (Kuban 1968, 71; Doğru 1995, 115). Commercial buildings are established for a specific purpose (Tankut 1973, 776; Kuban 1968, 70). This section gives information on the commercial structures of the Ottoman city, namely, shop, bedesten, han and kervansaray, covered bazaar, bazaar and arasta.
2.1.2.1. Shop
A shop is the basic element of the central bazaar. Shops are spaces where commerce and production functions take place and their doors open directly to a street, main street, han, or passage (Figure 2.3). In the Ottoman city, a bazaar is composed of small shops (Cerasi 1999, 123). With one door leaf of the shop open upwards and the other downwards, there is an eave on the top and there are wooden shutters below used as a counter for displaying
23
goods (Cerasi 1999, 123). In some shops, there are shutters composed of wooden boards connected by hinges and are vertically collected on the sides (Uysal 2004, 76).
Figure 2.3. Bursa Historical City Centre in 20th Century (Bursa City Museum Archive)
Towards the end of the 19th century, shop windows were truly commonplace (Cerasi 1999, 123). The size of the shops in Turkish bazaars corresponded to the needs of the era (Özdeş 1953, 140). According to Uysal, the shops made of different materials depending on their location in the market and the commercial structure it is located in are structures with two steps with a ground floor and occasionally with a basement (Uysal 2004, 76). Shops are located in open-air streets as well as in covered bazaar, arasta, han, or in the bedesten (Cezar 1985, 19).
2.1.2.2. Bedesten
The literature states that the name bedesten derives from “bezistan” or “bezzazistan” (Özdeş 1953, 17). Bedestens are covered bazaars constructed originally for selling fabrics and cloths17, which later turned into a place for trading precious goods and antiques (Özdeş
17 Especially in the medieval era, fabrics are important commercial products. Thus, the production and sale of fabrics take place in the most dynamic part of the bazaar.
24
1953, 17; Cerasi 1999, 124; Faroqhi 1993, 33; Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 116). According to Cezar, the word bedesten originated from the area of the bazaar where fabrics are sold18 (Cezar 1985, 211). The goods sold in bedestens are silk, carpets, fabrics, furs, jewelry, gold and silver filigree embroidery, copper products, decorated weapons, harness, leather goods, antiques, handwritten books (Kuban 2007, 602).
Cezar classifies Ottoman bedestens into five groups: bedesten with cellars, bedesten with shops outside, bedesten with arasta, multi-storey bedesten and single space bedesten (Cezar 1985). Özdeş uses four categories, namely simple covered single space, bedesten not surrounded by shops, bedesten with shops inside and outside (Figure 2.4), and bedesten with cellar-like rooms inside and one line of shops outside (Figure 2.5) (Özdeş 1953, 57).
Figure 2.4. Mahmut Paşa Bedesten in Ankara (Özdeş 1953, 77)
18 In later periods, hans for fabric production and sale were built. These hans were called drapers’, threaders’ or weavers’ han. During the period in which hans were built for this purpose, drapers’ bazaar with shops selling fabrics emerged next to hans (Cezar 1985, 212).
25
Figure 2.5. Eski Bedesten in İstanbul (Özdeş 1953, 41)
Cezar defines the function of bedesten and its significance in urban life as follows (Cezar 1985, 318-319):
 Bedestens are semi-official trade organizations.
 Bedestens are the main actor in the relationship of tradesmen with the state.
 Bedestens are located where trade activities are concentrated in cities.
 Bedestens represent securing precious goods with the architectural characteristics in commercial life, and corporate accuracy and reliability in terms of commercial activities.
 Bedestens are leading institutions in the relationship and connection of guilds with the state.
 Bedestens meet the need for safe deposit boxes in contemporary banks.
 Bedestens are stock markets of precious goods.
2.1.2.3. Han and Kervansaray
Kuban states that han and kervansaray are colloquially used as synonyms; these structures are hans if they are located in the city, while kervansarays on trade routes (Kuban 2007, 393).
26
Kervansarays are located on trade routes outside the city (Cezar 1985, 30; Özdeş 1953, 18; Güran 1976, 1; Uysal 2004, 73; Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 54), and are used by tradesmen for safe accommodation (Faroqhi 1993, 33). Kervansarays have a single entrance and a courtyard, with ground floors used as storage and upper floors for accommodation (Uysal 2004, 73) (Figure 2.6). They have parts like bath, bazaar and barn. Their building style resembles castles in order to ensure safety for both visitors and goods as they are located on desolate roads (Güran 1976, 1).
Figure 2.6. Rüstem Paşa Kervansaray in Edirne (Kuban 2007, 401)
The hans in Ottoman cities are not only an accommodation facility for strangers coming to the city but also a market place and bazaar (Cerasi 1999, 121). Therefore, some hans are named after the trade and production branches (Tahıl Pazarı, İpek Han, Koza Han etc.), while some are named after its sojourners (Kütahya Han, Acemler Han, etc.). The hans are composed of a ground floor for warehouses, shops, barn and a space for leaving carriages and a first floor composed of rooms reserved for merchants and other passengers (Gabriel 1958, 182; Kepeci 1935, 1; Kuban 2007, 393; Güran 1976, 17; Kuban 2007, 393). There are rooms belonging to the guard and service personnel next to the courtyard entrance (Gabriel 1958, 182). The urban hans are usually around the bedesten and have trade and
27
storage functions. In addition, there are “arabacı hans”19 for accommodation purposes in cities. Travelers who come to the city by carriages, mounts and pedestrian travelers stay at these hans (Şen, 2003, 95). The two-storey arabacı hans have a large entrance door. In the ground floors there are work places that meet daily needs, such as slipper makers, cobblers, blacksmiths, and saddlers, while the upper floors are bedrooms. Hans play an important role in the development of trade in the city. The number of hans in a city shows the importance of trade in that city (Faroqhi 1994, 35).
The typology of urban hans - a structure surrounding an inner court used for accommodation and storage - did not change throughout the Ottoman period (Kuban 2007, 393) (Figure 2.7). The plan of the Emir Han is the first example used for centuries by the Ottomans. This han meets all the conditions required by urban commercial hans (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 119).
Figure 2.7. Büyük Valide Hanı in İstanbul (Kuban 2007, 396)
These are generally two-storey structures, although there are three-storey versions built on such as the Yeni Han in Istanbul on sloping land. Hans are composed of the riwaqs surrounding the courtyard and the cells located behind it. There are riwaqs on both floors
19 With the spread of vehicles and hotels, the coachman hans started to lose their function. Due to the construction of the plant garage in the beginning of the 1960s, some of the hans were demolished to construct office buildings. The hans that survived until now still have active commercial function.
28
in big hans, whereas in smaller hans the riwaqs are built only on the upper floors. Depending on the relationship of the structures with the street, there are shops on one side of the han or more (Kuban 2007, 393).
2.1.2.4. Covered Bazaar
The information about covered bazaars dates back to the Ottoman cities of the middle ages (Cezar 1985, 99). A long street or a number of shorter streets are covered to establish a covered bazaar (Cezar 1985, 101). Özdeş defines three types of covered bazaars. The first is a bazaar composed of a single street and surrounded by shops (Ali Paşa Bazaar in Edirne, the Covered Bazaar in Niğde and Bursa). The second type is a bazaar with two rows of shops on two streets intersecting (the Sipahi Bazaar in Bursa, the Mısır Bazaar in Istanbul). The third is a bazaar formed by several covered streets and the shops around (Covered Bazaar of Kayseri) (Özdeş 1953, 139).
Figure 2.8. Covered Bazaar in İstanbul (Kuban 2007, 397)
In the covered bazaar fabric, there are streets named after the guilds dominating the artisan groups and hans where manufacturing, accommodation, and commercial functions take place (Cerasi 1999, 124).
29
2.1.2.5. Bazaar
Bazaar is a Persian word similar to “souq” in Arabic, a place for trading, while the Turkish word for bazaar is “çarşı” which derived from “cihar-su” in Persian meaning ‘four sides’. Bazaars are permanent marketplaces composed of shops on all four sides and streets. In the Ottoman period, the area compose of all the trade units around the central mosque or bedesten or covered bazaar used to be called a bazaar (Sakaoğlu ve Akbayar 1999, 175). In some regions, the word “Pazar” is used instead of çarşı.
Özdeş defines bazaar as a covered or open-air street or square with two sides of shops suitable for shopping (Özdeş 1953, 17). The bazaar in the Ottoman city is the area where the people in the city and the surrounding environs come together and where production and sales services take place (Cezar 1985, 31). In cities, the bazaar is composed of a long main street and minor streets on which artisans from different professions work (Cezar 1985, 17-20; Cerasi 1999, 121-125). According to Ergenç, bazaars are the second determining element of the trade area in Ottoman cities (Ergenç 2010, 55). Bazaars are spaces where artisans are located individually or as a group and they display functional integrity with hans (Kuban 2007, 395). The trading of elaborated craft products as well takes place in bazaars (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 58).
2.1.2.6. Arasta
An arasta is a covered or open-air commercial building with two rows of shops of same dimensions lined up on a linear axis (Figure 2.9). Arastas are shaped according to the guild organization and named after the profession of the tradesman working in them (Cerasi 1999, 121; Cezar 1985, 17-20; Uysal 2004, 73, Özdeş 1953, 139).
Arastas are commercial buildings that reflect the relationship of structures with social organization located in the commercial centre of the Ottoman city. Tradesmen of the same guild work in shops facing one another on the same street. Moreover, there are also arastas designed as a single covered road that bring different tradesmen together, as seen in the Ali
30
Paşa Bazaar in Edirne or in the arasta annexed to the Selimiye Mosque. Another form of arastas, like the Saraçlar Arasta in Safranbolu, is a wooden structure enclosed with walls composed of shops lined up on one or two streets with no entrance from outside, which sometimes belongs to only one guild (Kuban 2007, 602).
Figure 2.9. Sokullu Bazaar in Lüleburgaz (Özdeş 1953, 161)
2.2. Evaluation of the Authenticity Characteristics of the Historical City Centre
Efforts towards improving and preserving cultural heritage in the 20th century caused the concept authenticity gain significance and the identification of authenticity to become a problem. The understanding of authenticity has changed within the historic process, and the perception of authenticity in the 20th century is related to not only temporal change but also spatial change. According to Lowenthal, authenticity signifies “the true as opposed to the false, the real rather than the fake, the original, not the copy, the honest against the corrupt, the sacred instead of the profane”. These virtues make us see authenticity as an eternal and solid absolute value20.
20 Lowenthal, D., Authenticity: Rock of Faith or Quicksand Quagmire? Online from Getty Institute Newsleter 14.3 Fall 1999, avaible from internet: http://ww.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletter/14_3/feature1_2html , 121
31
Not only the meaning and functions of the antique concept of authenticity but also the aims and criteria related to the concept have changed (Lowenthal 1994, 125). Cultural heritage is generally evaluated through the criteria of authenticity which are shaped according to space, time and context (Lowenthal 1994, 134).
As this study aims to determine whether the changing commercial functions in the historic process have a relationship with the deterioration of the authenticity characteristics of historic buildings, this section tackles the different approaches to authenticity over time.
2.2.1. Authenticity in Urban Conservation
Initially, the concept of authenticity undertook only the physical aspects of heritage. This predominantly Western understanding of authenticity prevailed the conservation practice as reflected in charters and international documents. Although not using the word authenticity implicitly, one such document is the Athens Charter (1931), the pioneering international document in terms of scientific principles of preservation and restoration. Article VII states that “steps should be taken to reinstate any original fragments that may be recovered”, indicating physical qualities. Three decades later, the first document to mention authenticity was prepared: the Venice Charter (1964). The first paragraph of the preface of the Venice Charter regarding historic monuments is as follows:
“…People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity…” (The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (1964), preamble).
Third, the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (1976) mentions authenticity similar to the precedent documents in considering only the physical characteristics, albeit underlining unsuitable use:
“…Historic areas and their surroundings should be actively protected against damage of all kinds, particularly that resulting from unsuitable use, unnecessary
32
additions and misguided or insensitive changes such as will impair their authenticity…”
Fourth, the first UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (1977) introduces four parameters of authenticity in conservation practice, namely design, material, workmanship and setting, which denote once more the tangible aspect of heritage21.
According to the Operational Guidelines, the following aspects of authenticity should be considered:
 Authenticity in Design: Design is the arrangement of structural, technical, material elements that make up a historic resource, which are subject to change over time22 (Cohen 2001, 67). Despite this change, authenticity may reside in either form - original or evolved - or design qualities that these forms signify. These design qualities are connected with both spatial-architectural elements and organisation of these elements within a structural or functional system (Yüceer 2005, 80). Thus, authenticity in design can be identified through the legibility of the architectural, artistic, engineering and functional design of the historic resource (Fielden and Jokilehto 1998, 71).
 Authenticity in Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic resource (Cohen 2001, 65). Authenticity in setting is reflected in the relationship between the resource and its physical environment23, consisting of both landscape and townscape values and man-made constructions (Fielden and Jokilehto 1998, 71). This relationship may be between a historic resource and its setting, between a historic resource and the historic patterns of use that shaped the setting, and between a historic resource and sense of place of the surrounding setting. The preservation of a monument in situ is a basic requirement for analyzing its relationship to the natural and man-made values (Fielden and Jokilehto 1998, 71).
21 Stovel 2007, 24; Cameron 2009, 133; Yüceer 2005, 79; Fielden and Jokilehto 1998, 17; Venice Charter, Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention (1977), Article 24b.i.
22 http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htmd
23 http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htm
33
 Authenticity in Materials: authenticity in materials is based on the physical substance combined and used in the construction of the heritage resource. Authenticity in materials resides in both surface characteristics and the order of the constituent material of the physical fabric, which conveys cultural messages expressed through form, design and technique. The level of integrity of materials of the physical fabric demonstrates the extent to which authenticity is preserved. In identifying this level, particular attention should be paid on the protection, conservation and maintenance of the original physical fabric (Fielden and Jokilehto 2008, 69; Yüceer 2005, 79).
 Authenticity in Workmanship: authenticity in workmanship focuses on tracing the workmanship of construction. The traces of workmanship can shed light on the level of technology, aesthetic principles and characteristics of a historic period, culture or people (Cohen 2001, 67). Authenticity may thus be identified in the extent to which traditions preserved their integrity in the form and use of heritage resource.
Fifth, the Washington Charter (1987) mentions authenticity in a similar manner with an emphasis on the physical aspects. Article 2 states “any threat to these qualities would compromise the authenticity of the historic town and urban area”. The qualities to which the article refers are historic characteristics, such as urban patterns, building characteristics (scale, size, style, construction, materials, colour and decoration), the setting and the functions of the area.
Finally, the Burra Charter (1988, and 1999 revision) underlines the importance of preserving the fabric “in its existing state”, although it does not use explicitly the word authenticity. Here, authenticity is taken as an inherent quality within the original fabric which stands for “all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents, and objects”.
34
In the 1990s, the layers demonstrating the historic development and the definitions approaching authenticity differently gained significance with the Nara Document on Authenticity24 (Riaubiene 2007, 78).
The preface of the Nara Document on Authenticity states:
"The Nara Document on Authenticity is conceived in the spirit of the Charter of Venice, 1963, and builds on it and extends it in response to the expanding scope of cultural heritage concerns and interests in our contemporary world” (Nara Document on Authenticity, Article 3; Asatekin 1993).
It could be affirmed that the four elements of the test of authenticity in the earlier version of the UNESCO World Heritage Operational Guidelines were altered and the final elements correspond to the elements of the Nara Document. According to Article 13 of the Nara Document, assessments of authenticity should include “form and design, materials and substance, use and functions, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors” (Nara Document on Authenticity 1994, Article 13; Jokilehto 1999, 298; Asatekin 1993; Niskasaari 2008, 3).
The latest UNESCO World Heritage Operational Guidelines (2005) introduces a new definition of authenticity, which relies on ‘conditions of authenticity’ rather than the ‘test of authenticity’. Paragraph 82 states:
“Depending on the type of cultural heritage, and its cultural context, properties may be understood to the conditions of authenticity if their cultural value (as recognized in the nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including: form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; languages, and other forms of intangible heritage, spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors.” (Stovel 2007, 23-24; UNESCO 2005, paragraph 82; Jokilehto, 2006; the Operational Guidelines):
Following the Nara Document on Authenticity, regional documents were prepared based on cultural diversity and differentiation and covering diverse approaches to authenticity.
24 http://whc.UNESCO.org/uploads/events/documents/event-833-3.pdf
35
One of these documents, the Charter of Brasilia25 brought into question the authenticity of the heritage of Latin America which has different features with respect to European and Asian country. The authenticity of this region originates from the combination of a number of heritages: pre-Columbian, early European heritage, African influence and the heritage of various migration waves starting at the end of the 19th century. The process of identification of authenticity of such a complex heritage is two-dimensional – identity and diversity. The degree of authenticity of each heritage should be dimensioned as a function of these heritages. According to the Charter of Brasilia, the prioritization of different aspects of authenticity, such as space and function, differs for each architectural monument.
Another document is the Declaration of San Antonio26. This document sets forth clearly the basic indicators that prove the authenticity of heritage. The first indicator is the reflection of value: the resource maintains the condition in which it was created and carries important traces of the past. The second is integrity: whether the site is fragmented or not; the amount of the missing part and the new parts. The third one is context: whether the context and/or environment is original or correspond to other important eras and whether these increase or decrease its importance. The fourth one is identity: identification of the local population with the site and the owner of the identity reflected by the site. The fifth one is use and function: traditional use patterns that characterize the site. In addition, in the identification of authenticity, taking into account the dynamic nature of cultural values is crucial and criteria that are static and inflexible should be avoided.
Evaluation:
Historic commercial buildings are buildings that are products of an architecture that no longer exists today made by using techniques and materials that do not exist and that bear antique properties imposed on them by time and they should be handed down with minimum interference. Contemporary preservation approaches accept historic buildings as historic documents with the changes and traces that have survived until today since the
25http://www.usicomos.org/symp/archive/1996/docs/icomos-brazil-4804.
26http://www.usicomos.org/symp/archive/1996/docs/icomos-brazil-4804.
36
time they were first built, and as evidence of the validity of this document, these approaches are based on the necessity of the conservation of their uniqueness in terms of:
 design (architecture, unique elements of the functional and structural design, message and identity of the building),
 material (original building material, traces of historic features on the material and traces of the aging process), and
 workmanship (traces of the original construction process and techniques on material and structure) (Fielden and Jokilehto 1998, 67).
In this thesis, there are three approaches to identify authenticity. The first one is authenticity in design, followed by authenticity in setting and authenticity in materials and technique. In order to identify authenticity in materials and technique, it is important that the interventions during the historic process were made with awareness and were registered. Article 12 of the Nara Document on Authenticity emphasizes the accuracy and reliability of the information resources to be able to evaluate authenticity correctly. The interventions made to the historic structures unconsciously and which are not registered make it difficult to identify the characteristics of the historic structures in the study area. It is important that compatible functions are assigned to historic structures for the continuity of the authentic design of buildings. Over time, using historic buildings for different purpose than their original uses affects the authentic design of them. In order to analyze the impact of the contemporary commercial functions on the authentic design of the historic buildings the deteriorations in the authentic design of commercial structures should be identified. This study evaluated the effects of the commercial activity types on the authentic characteristics of the buildings in terms of the modes of interventions on the closed space, semi-open space and open space. The modes of intervention taken into account when examining the historic trade buildings are as follows:
Intervention on the closed space of the building:
• Addition of a mezzanine
• Addition of a basement
• Removal of the main wall
 Enlarging, destroying, replacing or removing doors and windows
 Removing fireplaces and alcoves in the shops
Intervention on the semi-open space of the building:
37
• Closure of the riwaqs
Intervention on the open space of the building
 Intense use of courtyard
Intervention on the façade of the building
 Attaching billboards, tent, shop window, heating and cooling equipments, stove pipes, electrical and telephone cables.
38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The research method which aims to research whether new functions added to historical buildings as a result of changes in historical commercial centres in the historical process are compatible with the original functions of these buildings or not in the selected field area study. Case study is an empirical research method investigating a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context that is used when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not apparent and when there are multiple sources of evidence (Yin 1984, 23). The most fundamental characteristic of the case study method is the in-depth investigation of one or a few cases. In this process, factors related to a case should be investigated with a holistic approach. Case studies can be conducted with qualitative and quantitative approaches (Punch 2005, 144). The goal of both approaches is to determine the results related to a particular case (Yıldırım and Şimşek 2011, 77).
In this part, firstly the borders of the study area were determined. Then, data collecting and analysis methods for determining the change of land use within the study area were defined.
3.1. Framework of the Study Area (Bursa Historical City Centre)
This study seeks to identify the types of use in historic buildings that impair the authentic characteristics of these buildings through the case of Bursa Historical City Centre. The city of Bursa is historically located on major trade routes and the organization of craftsmen is developed in the city. Bursa Historic City Centre has survived and preserved its original
39
structure since the 14th century when it first developed, despite the changes it underwent due to various disasters (fires, earthquakes and invasions).
Following the development works in the 19th century, the historic commercial centre of the city is bordered by Cumhuriyet Street in the north, Atatürk Street in the south, İnönü Street in the east and Cemal Nadir Street in the west. The study area is the area within these boundaries (Figure 3.1).
THE LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA WITH IN THE HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL CENTRE
Boundry of Study Area
Location of the Study Area with in the City of Bursa
Source: Google Earth, imaging date, 07.19.2011
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 3.1. The Location of the Study Area within the City of Bursa
40
Today, Bursa continues to be a city with a single centre. Especially after 1960 when industry became prominent in the city, different units of use emerged due to the demands and needs of various consumer groups. The traditional social structure dominated until the industrial era by agriculture and handicrafts (such as knitting, towel making, and cutlery, copper and weaving) began to change after industrialization. A part of the traditional production and trade maintained its importance, while some others changed by adapting to the changing socio-economic structure.
When we evaluate Bursa City in terms of urban identity, it is in the nature of a commercial centre on the Silk Road, a thermal baths town, industrial city and manufacturing centre. Historical commercial centre of the city includes important structures representing these important features of the city. The hans located in the historical trade centre have an important share in the identity of Bursa City (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Bursa Historical City Centre (http://www.mimdap.org/?p=35436, last accessed, 04.01.2011).
A holistic conservation policy couldnot be formed in the conservation works for the city centre in the planned period. The conservations works carried in the city aimed
41
“rehabilitation of valuable structures and increasing their perceptibility, clearance of surrounding additional and invaluable buildings, and arrangement of the new areas obtained in a way to meet the needs of urban life style” (Kırayoğlu 2008, 6527).
In the conservation work carried out in the city centre, historical buildings were renovated one by one, and they were made perceivable by landscape arrangements. However, as functions located in the hans were not defined, some of them damaged the authentic characteristics of the hans in this process and decreased perceptibility of the structure in their interior parts.
3.2. Methods of Data Collecting
The purpose of pre-analytical studies is to collect relevant data sets from different sources and to process these data sets in order to provide a basis for testing the main hypothesis and for answering the main question of the dissertation. Different methods and techniques are employed during pre-analytical study, including archive studies, on-site observation and land-use studies, interviews and surveys.
3.2.1. Archive Study
The historical documentation of the study area is done by collecting reliable information recovered by both primary and secondary documents.
The primary data:
Sources which give basic information about the spatial development of the city in the historical process were examined under two groups: written and visual sources.
27 http://www.tarihikentlerbirligi.org/i/YerelKimlik/E_Yerel_Kimlik_Sayi_15.pdf, last accessed 23. 01. 2012
42
Written documents:
▪ Court Records28 and the Ottoman Tax Registers: Some assessments were done on the basis of information about the development of the city in certain periods obtained from court records (şer'iye sicilleri) and the Ottoman tax registers (tahrir defterleri). Information about the spatial pattern of the city until 20th century was obtained from the Yearbook for the province “Hüdavendigar Vilayet Salnameleri” (Hüdavendigar City Yearbooks). These yearbooks which started to be published in the second half of the 19th century (1866) contain important data about the development of spatial pattern such as province population, geographical location of the province, services that public administration offers, schools, hospitals and trade centres.
▪ Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets decisions: Reports prepared by Bursa Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets and the Council decisions contain detailed information about the interventions on historical buildings.
Visual documents:
▪ Old maps: Old city maps prepared between 1862 and 1910 are important as they contain data which make it possible to make comparisons about the spatial development of the city. Suphi Bey Map prepared in 1861, insurance map prepared in 1880 and other maps prepared in 1910 were used in the study. Suphi Bey Map contains important and detailed information about the spatial organization of the city at the beginning of the second half of the 19th century. Maps prepared in 1880 and 1910 were used with the purpose of comparing changes in spatial development with Suphi Bey Map.
▪ Old photos: Despite not including the entire research field, old photos give information about the spatial formation of activity areas.
▪ Building survey-restoration projects: They give information about the intervention types of functions in the building.
▪ Land use survey in 2010
28 For more information, please see: Shaw, S.J., (1960), “Archival Sources of Ottoman History: The Archives of Turkey” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol:80, no:1, Jan-Mar. 1960., Baltacı, C., (1985), “Şeriye Sicillerinin Tarihsel ve Kültürel Önemi”, Osmanlı Arşivleri ve Osmanlı Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 17 Mayıs 1985., Akgündüz, a., (1998), Şeriye Sicilleri I-II, TDAV Yayınları, İstanbul.
43
The secondary data:
The works in this group are composed of dissertations, articles, papers, periodicals, travel books and monographic works on Bursa. Old magazines, newspapers and films also provide visual information about the urban environment.
Various studies about the historical development of the city of Bursa were conducted (especially about 15th and 16th centuries). For instance, researchers of community centre (halk evleri) conducted various studies in order to illuminate the history of the city. Kamil Kepeci29 and Kazım Baykal30 have various studies based on archive documents about the buildings which compose the commercial centre. There are documents compiled from court registers in Bursa People's Houses publications. In the academic field, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi31 has comprehensive research studies on Bursa monuments. Ömer Lütfi Barkan32 published ihtisab (a type of tax) code for Bursa33; and also conducted many studies to take Bursa as basis in his general observations for the Ottoman cities. Halil İnalcık34 has articles about the importance of court records for research studies about the history of Bursa and various studies containing important information about the development and socio-economic life of the Ottoman cities. Fahri Dalsar35 has important studies regarding the development of silk industry in Bursa. There are also dissertations about the social and economic history of the city in addition to the studies about the city of Bursa conducted by foreign and local travellers.
3.2.2. Land Use
Land use survey in the study area was conducted in 2010. The purpose of land use survey was to determine the usage types in the historical commercial centre today. During the
29 Bursa Hanları, 1935; Bursa Hamamları, 1938; “Tarihi Bilgiler ve Vesikalar”, Vakıflar Dergisi, 1942; Bursa Kütüğü.
30 Bursa ve Anıtları, 1950; Tarihte Bursa Yangınları, 1948.
31 Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri I, 1966; Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri II, 1972; Osmanlı Mimarisinde Fatih Devri III, 1973.
32 “Bazı Büyük Şehirlerde Eşya ve Yiyecek Fiyatlarının Tespit ve Teftişi Hususlarını Tanzim Eden Kanunlar”, Tarih Vesikaları, II/7, 1942. 33 The law on determination and surveillance of good and food prices.
34 “Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluş ve İnkişafi Devrinde Türkiye’nin İktisadi Vaziyeti Üzerinde Bir Tetkik Münasebetiyle”, Belleten, 1951; “Bursa Şer’iye Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmet’in Fermanları”, Belleten, 1947.
35 Bursa’da İpekçilik, 1960.
44
land use studies, on-site observations were also carried, and different parts of the case study area were documented by taking photographs.
2009 cadastral map taken from the Municipality of Osmangazi and 1989 Central Conservation Plan were used as base maps of the land use survey. Floor plans in the approved building survey projects in Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archive are used as base maps during the land use study in the hans.
A two-stage land use survey was conducted in the study area. In the first stage, main function areas (such as trade, housing, cultural facility etc.) within the study area were determined. In the second stage, the usage of ground floor and upper floor in the Ottoman hans and the usage of ground floor in bazaars 36 were identified in detail.
3.2.3. Deep Interview
Stewart and Cash define interview as a pre-determined, mutual and interactive communication process based on questioning and answering for a purpose (Steward and Cash 2011, 7). The related literature uses different classifications of the types of interviews37. This study used one of the approaches to interviews developed by Rubin38, namely the “open-ended in-depth interview method”. In an open-ended in-depth interview, the researcher focuses on pre-determined topics in the course of the interview but there are no pre-prepared questions (Rubin 2010, 356).
Snowball or chain sampling method was used to select the participants to be interviewed. In this method, the process starts with a very simple question and proceeds with an increasing number of names and conditions (Patton 1987, 56).
36 Ground floors of trade buildings in the study area are densely used as they are easily accessible for pedestrians. As the purpose of the study is to search the effect of new functions added to the historical building on its original features, land use survey was made for determining the function of shops on the ground floor.
37 For more information, Patton, M.Q., (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evolution, Newbury Park, CA: Sage., Stewart, C., and Cash, W.B., (2011), Interviewing: Principles and Prectices, 4th edition, New York : McGraw-Hill., www.egitim.aku.edu.tr/gozlemmulakat.ppt, last acces 21.03.2011.
38 Other interview types identified by Rubin are “fixed-format questionnaire interview”, “open-ended questionnaire interview” and “open-ended conversational interview “.
45
As a result of observations in the study area, it is identified that bazaar pattern, based on the guild system emerged in the 14th century, still exists under contemporary conditions in some parts of the study area. In addition, managements of inns and bazaars in the historical trade centre established a civil society organization named “Bursa Historical Bazaar and Hans Association (BTÇH)”. In order to get information on the functional change in time, a deep interview was done with the head of BTÇH. Further interviews were also made with the shopkeepers in the bazaar, who witnessed the changes in the historical trade centre and in the bazaar for the last 3 generations. Lastly, technical staff of Osmangazi Municipality and Bursa Metropolitan Municipality was interviewed regarding the planning activities carried for Bursa city and the historical trade centre39.
3.2.4. Questionnaire
Observations were made in different years 40 and on different dates 41 and physical spaces and relations were tried to be understood in a multi-directional way within the scope of the research before applying the questionnaire. After these observations, questionnaire study was conducted in order to identify the changes in land use in the area and trends for the future within this process42. In order to determine the functions that are compatible for the authentic design characteristics in historic commercial buildings, surveys were conducted in all the shops in the hans located in the study area. Likewise, it was planned to survey all the shops located in the historic commercial centre. However, some proprietors did not want to participate in the survey, so not all the establishments could be surveyed eventually. Questionnaires were distributed to 20% of the total number of establishments in the market.
39 See Appendix A for list of interviews.
40 July 2009, October 2010, March 2011
41 On weekdays and weekend, at different hours of the day.
42 See Appendix B for public survey form.
46
Questionnaires were used as a supportive study to land use survey. For this reason, questionnaires were kept short and mostly questions about the determination of land use change were used. Questionnaires are composed of 4 main parts43:
 The first part contains questions for the determination of changes in land use. Accordingly, activity type of the business, since how many years it is in the same unit and the activity type of the business before its current activity were tried to be understood.
 The second part contains questions for determining whether physical conditions of trade buildings are sufficient or not.
 The third part contains questions for determining functions' tendency of coming together in the research area.
 The last part contains questions for learning opinions and expectations of business owners about the area.
3.3. Methods for Data Analysis
There are different concepts and approaches in the related literature on the analysis of qualitative data. The common point of these approaches is describing the data and associating in a meaningful manner the results obtained through the researcher’s interpretations.
A two-stage statistical analysis was made with the data obtained as a result of land use survey carried out in the study area and questionnaire study. In the analysis group in the first stage; cluster analysis44 was made with the data obtained from land use survey of 2010 in order to determine whether specialized bazaar pattern based on guild organization system which composes the original structure of the research area still has its traces today or not. Firstly, function and coordinates of each shop in all of the bazaars and hans were
44 Cluster analysis, one of the multivariate statistical techniques, is used with the purpose of classifying data whose group number is not known and which are not grouped according to their similarities. Cluster analysis is a technique which makes it possible to collect data in separate clusters according to units or variables with regard to their similarities (Çakmak, 1999, 188; Tatlıdil 1996, 252).
47
coded in the same data set in SPSS 16.0 for Windows package program in order to make cluster analysis (Figure 3.3). Grouped hierarchical cluster analysis was made in order to determine which activities are denser in which areas45.
Figure 3.3. Screen capture from the database
In the second stage, all Hans in study area (Koza Han, Emir Han, Eski İpek Han, Fidan Han, Geyve Han, Pirinç Han and Tuz Han) were analysed in order to determine whether there is a relation between the function in the historical building and the deterioration of the authentic characteristics of the building (Figure3.4). Another han in the study area, Kütahya Han was not included in the study as the restoration works have been completed recently and it still has not been brought into use.
Firstly, ground floor and upper floor land uses were processed on floor plans of building measured drawing projects in order to identify the relation between the functions in Koza Han, Emir Han, Eski İpek Han, Fidan Han, Geyve Han, Tuz Han and Pirinç Han and the
45 Each unit or each observation is considered as a cluster at the beginning in grouped hierarchical cluster analysis method. Then, the closest two clusters (or observations) are collected and unified in the same cluster. This process can be shown with the Figure named dendrogram or tree diagram ( Çakmak, 1999,188; Tatlıdil 1996, 252). Various cluster analysis methods were tried in the study; and it was decided that ward method created more significant cluster structures. Squared euclidean distance was used as distance measure for calculating the distance between two units in the analysis where ward method was used.
48
EMİR HAN
İPEK HAN
FİDAN HAN
KOZA HAN
TUZ HAN
GEYVE HAN
PİRİNÇ HAN
Cons. Date
IV. Century
V. Century
V. Century
V. Century
V. Century
V. Century
VI. Century
Original Use
Covered Bazaar
Trade & Accommodation
accommodation
Trade & Accommodation
Trade
Trade
Silk Manufacture & Accommodation
Land Use
Main Function in 2010
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Upper Floor
Jewellery
Hac Material&
Jewellery
Home Textile
Storage
Home Textile &
Wedding Dress Seller
Storage
Different Trades
Silk Manufacturer
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Storage
Home Textile
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Storage
Figure 3.4. Hans in Study Area
49
deterioration of the authentic design characteristics. Then, building measured drawing reports, reports prepared by Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets and the interventions stated in Council decisions were associated with land use survey. Single variable and multiple variable crosstab analysis are used in the study as the data obtained from the questionnaire is classification scale data. Finally, the usages which were considered to impair the physical integrity of the historical building most were classified according to types of intervention.
Interventions mentioned in the survey reports of hans in the study area, affecting the authentic characteristics of the buildings, and the ones given in the report by the Conservation Council and council decisions are combined. This data is linked with the findings of land use study carried in the study area in 2010 and usages negatively impact on the authentic characteristics of the buildings are identified.
Considering that interventions in some units were done before, data obtained from the survey and trading licenses in the Municipality is combined with the data in the reports prepared by Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets and with the council decisions and date of interventions are determined. In this evaluation process, previous usage of the unit is taken into consideration if it is detected that intervention was done in the previous usage period.
50
CHAPTER 4
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF
BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
The city of Bursa went through some important structural changes since its establishment in different periods of the historical process. First of these changes is the formation of a bedesten centred market outside the citadel, when the city came under the sovereignty of the Ottomans in the 14th century (Tekeli 1999, 7). The second change was the re-structuring of the city under the impact of changes started with the Imperial Edict of Reorganization (Tanzimat Fermanı) in the second half of the 19th century. The third one is the transformation caused by population growth and rapid urbanization experienced in parallel to industrial development in the Republican Era, especially after 1960s (Tekeli 1999, 8).
In parallel to this transformation and change process experienced by the city, Historical City Centre has also gone through some changes. The first intervention affecting spatial structure and physical integrity of the Centre is the public improvements carried out in the 19th Century. Later in the 20th century, Historical City Centre changed dramatically, especially after the fire broke out in 1958. In this section clustering form and usage changes of the existing commercial buildings, within the boundaries of the study area, in the historical process are examined, while development process of the Historical City Centre is described.
4.1. Historical Development Process of the City of Bursa
The city of Bursa, presumed to be founded by Prusias I of Bithynia in 187-186 BC (Yenal 1996, 11), is an important city in terms of its geographical location and climatic conditions
51
as well as its place in the historical development processes46. The city has developed on a sloppy terrain extending from north-western slope of Mount Uludağ (formerly known as Friar Mountain) into the plains on the south of Sea of Marmara, and spread between Cilimboz and Gökdere rivers on the slopes on Mount Uludağ (Darkot 1944, 806-808) (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. Bursa Gravure (Bursa council for the conservation of cultural and natural assets archives. Date of gravure is not mentioned but it is probably 19th century)
Spatial frame of the City of Bursa has been changing in line with the advantages of its location as well as changes in its external relations. Bursa has been located on important trade routes of Anatolia, which became crossroads between the East and the West from the 13th century onwards47.
46 When historical development of the city is examined, despite different establishment dates given in the sources, it is seen that the city was established as a castle city surrounded by walls, on a hill (Baykal 1950, 8; Yenal 1996, 11; Tekeli 1999, 9; Vardar 2008, 185). Bursa went under sovereignty of Lydia, Persia, Birthynia, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman in order.
47 Sultan Orhan started a number of initiatives immediately after he conquered Bursa to attract long-distance trade. Expansion of the Ottoman Empire, accelerated diversion of long-distance trade ways to the centre of Bursa and diversified them. Sultan Orhan directed the spice road coming from India and Arabia through Adana-Konya-Akşehir-Kütahya-Bursa and Egypt-Antalya-Isparta-Kütahya-Bursa paths. When Balat, Ephesus and İzmir, on the further west, went under the sovereignty of the Ottoman in 1361, long-distance trade routes passing from here were connected to Bursa through Manisa-Akhisar-Balıkesir-Bursa path. After conquest of Edirne in 1361, Edirne-Gelibolu-Bursa route was developed (Tekeli 2007, 57). Trade routes intersecting in Bursa were used to bring raw silk from Iran, spices, indigo and similar products from the east and woollen cloth and paper from the west to the city. Bursa was also an important node for cotton trade from West Anatolia to the Black Sea. Wool and silky fabrics from Italy and other European countries increased commercial importance of Bursa in the international arena (Faroqhi 1994, 7). Thus, the city became a market where products coming from the east and the west are exchanged, and production in Bursa and in the vicinity developed (Tekeli 1999, 12).
52
Development of Bursa was directed out of the citadel after the conquest by the Ottomans. The first transformation the Ottomans started in the city was establishment and development of a trade centre composed of a covered bazaar-centred market outside the citadel. Therefore, after conquering Bursa, Sultan Orhan got a mosque, a madrasah and a han built on the east of the citadel, outside the walls, without interfering inside (İnalcık 2010, 142; Baykal 1950, 15). Main centre of the city was the region of Orhan Bey’s structures. Murad I., who came to the throne after Sultan Orhan, contributed to the development of the city towards western side by having built a social complex (külliye) on Çekirge side (Yenal 1996, 27; Kuban 2007, 70). Later on, Sultan Bayezid directed the city development towards eastern side by having built a social complex on the opposite direction of Hüdavendigar Social Complex of Murad I. Settlement areas of the city, other than the ones in the city centre, are composed of social complexes built by sultans, royal members and senior managers of the city and neighbourhoods developed around these complexes (Yenal 1996, 27; Tekeli 1999, 14). City of Bursa in the 14th and the 15th centuries was formed by neighbourhood complexes developed around social complexes and imarets48.
There had not been any significant change in the macro form of the city until the 19th century. According to the city map prepared by German traveller Carsten Niebuhr in 176749, macro form development of the city was extended to Muradiye Social Complex on the west and Yıldırım Social Complex in the east.
In the 19th century, a commercial centre composed of approximately 60 hans, storage places and shops around Ulu Cami and two industrial zones along Gökdere and Cilimboz rivers were located in the city (Batkan 1996, 247; Oğuzoğlu 2010, 72). Ethnic groups in the settlement areas of the city were noticeable. Armenians were settled on the west of the citadel while Greeks were settled on the east. During this period, macro form was bordered
48 For more information on the impacts of imarets on the development of Ottoman cities, please see: Barkan, Ö. L., (1963), “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İmaret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyiş Tarzına Ait Araştırmalar”, İ.Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, C.XXIII, İstanbul.
49 Niebuhr map was prepared as a draft in 1767. This map is the oldest schematic city plan of Bursa in hand. When this map is compared with the map of Suphi Bey, it can be observed that urban pattern did not change for a hundred years. The map can be found in Niebuhr’s book “Travel notes on Arabia and surrounding countries” (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 73).
53
by Yıldırım and Emir Sultan Social Complexes on the east and Muradiye Social Complex on the west (Tekeli 1999, 15; Batkan 1996, 247).
Rapid population growth was experienced in the 20th century especially due to industrialization and extensive migration50. With the site selection of Merinos and İpekiş factories, which were among first state investments of the Republic, on İzmir road on the north, the city started to extend in the north-south direction. Between 1938 and 1944, with the construction of Çelik Palas Hotel, Park Hotel and Altıparmak Street, Bursa showed a development towards the west (Vardar 2008, 187). The city started to attract tourist interests with the proliferation of hotels in the city centre and Çekirge51.
The most important change in the city in 1960s was the establishment of Organized Industry Zone52 (Aktar 1996, 141; Batkan 1996, 255; Tekeli 1999, 24). With the opening of Organized Industry Zone in 1966, the city showed leap frog development on Mudanya road. Following these developments, Development Plan Bureau of the Ministry of Development and Settlement prepared Bursa master plan, aiming to decentralize the city, in 1976 (Altaban 1999, 171). New industrial areas were proposed and directions of the urban development were determined in this plan. Urban development was proposed in the east-west direction.
By the 1990s, housing demand in the city increased as a result of employment-driven internal migration and emigration from Bulgaria in 1989. The city started to spread towards the plains due to increasing land prices, based on scarcity of empty land that would respond to economic conditions of this population in the existing urban pattern and extent of habitable areas to the borders of urban threshold (Vardar 2008, 187). Today, macro form of Bursa is in linear form spreading into the plains on the north, in east-west direction and limited by sloppy areas in the south.
50 The city population was under hundred thousand in 1940s and reached up to two million in 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr, son erişim 27 Ocak 2012).
51 Many visitors come to the city in the spring and autumn for hot water resources and baths. Thus, there are many hotels in Çekirge and Altıparmak regions.
52 Organized Industry Zone is established on Mudanya road on the west of the city at 14 km distance to the city centre (Tekeli 1999, 24).
54
4.2. Development Process of the Historical City Centre
Formation process of the historical city centre of Bursa started after the city had been conquered by the Ottoman (after 1326). Historical City Centre started to form after construction of public houses, bazaars, markets, baths, mosques and madrassas in the 14th century and completed its development towards mid of the 16th century (İnalcık 1971, 1334, Tanyeli 1987, 138). There was no significant change in physical and social structure of Bursa in the 17th and the 18th centuries. Functional relations among branches in trade and handicrafts within this area continued without any changes until the 19th century (Bağbancı 2010, 198).
Development plan activities affecting spatial and physical integrity of the Historical City Centre were carried out in the 19th century. In the later course, after the 20th century, drastic changes were seen in the Historical City Centre especially after the fire broke out in 1958. Thus, historical development of the Historical City Centre is examined in three periods: development before the 19th century, development in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, and development in the second half of the 20th century.
4.2.1. Development of the Historical City Centre before the 19th Century
Commercial centre of the city was established in an empty land on the east of the citadel in the first half of the 14th century53. Central trade area developed in the same axis in parallel to the development of the city on east-west axis. First structures composing the trade centre were cultural and commercial structures consisting of the mosque, lodging house, han and bath built by Orhan Gazi (Vural 2007, 291; Tekeli 1999, 13). Development of the centre continued with construction of hans built by following sultans. Murad I., built the Kapan Han between Organ Gazi social complexes and the castle wall, and Vezir Han on the north-east of Orhan Mosque (Tekeli 1999, 13; Dörtok Abacı 2007, 166). With the construction of Kapan Han, sale of products such as flour, vegetables, fruits, salt, honey and fish started to be carried in here (Dalsar 1960a, 254).
53 Due to establishment of trade centre on an empty land, central trade area of Bursa developed in a way to include various characteristics of the Ottoman city markets (Cezar 1985,57).
55
In Yıldırım Bayezid period, the bezzazistan 54, Ulucami (Tekeli 1999, 13; Dörtok Abacı 2007, 166; Bursa Ansiklopedisi 2002, 988; Vural 2007, 291) and Şengül Bath (Yenen 2010, 191) was built opposite of Emir Han built by Orhan Bey. The covered bazaar was the core of the Historical City Centre with the hans and bazaars developed around it. Intensification of the business centre continued with the construction of new hans in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Çelebi Mehmet had İpek Han built in the 15th century. This han was constructed mainly as a place for silk traders’ stay rather than as a place to make purchases. Later on Geyve Han and Yeni İpek Han were built. With the construction of these hans, “Uzun Çarşı” axis, bounded on the north, began to shape in the east-west direction. Uzun Çarşı axis, which was bounded by Koza Han in the south and Fidan Han in the north, became more apparent at the end of the 15th century. Over time, small business lolling against the hans were established on both sides of Uzun Çarşı axis and these small shops were covered later on. This way, second hand book and spice bazaars, which were initial sections of Bursa Covered Bazaar, were formed (Akkılıç 1999, 73). These bazaars, extending towards the north and combining with Bedesten, continued its northern development with construction of Gelincik and Sipahi Bazaars (Bursa Ansiklopedisi 2002, 988) (Figure 4.2).
A work division appeared among the hans as their numbers increased. Production and sales functions differentiated on the roads connecting the hans and specialized commodity markets developed (Tekeli 1999, 14). Service areas such as worshipping, education and cleaning were located in the trade centre of the city in addition to hans and bazaars, where craft products were produced. Spatial development of the bazaars (number of shops and settlement pattern) in the trade centre was under control of the trade guild. Rules applied by the guild on the number of shops to settlement pattern created an order in the spatial organization and protected it55 (Ergenç 1980, 8, 12, 97,189; Kaygalak 2008, 126).
54 The covered bazaar had various functions. It had functions other than shopping. It was a place where major traders gathered. In that period, it functioned as a kind of stock market for silk and other valuable goods, furthermore as a safe place where the traders kept their money and valuable belongings.
56
DEVELOPMENT OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE BEFORE 19TH CENTURY
Activity Areas
14th Century Buildings
1
Emir Han
2
Kapan Han
3
Bedesten
4
Ulucami
15th Century Buildings
5
Ipek Han
6
Geyve Han
7
Kütahya Han
8
Tuz han
9
Fidan Han
10
Koza Han
11
Sipahi Bazaar
12
Gelincik Bazaar
13
Uzun Bazaar
14
Aktarlar Bazaar
15
Ivazpaşa Bazaar
16th Century Buildings
16
Pirinç Han
Boundary of Study Area
Reproduced based on Suphi Bey Map in 1862
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 4.2 Development of Bursa Historical City Centre before 19th Century
16
5
2
4
1
11
15
12
6
14
9
13
10
7
8
57
4.2.2 Development of the Historical City Centre in the 19th Century and at the begining of the 20th Century
There are two breaking points affecting the development of the Historical City Centre in the 19th century. First breaking point was the transformation period in social, political, economic and cultural areas with a series of reforms, started with Tanzimat Fermanı (Imperial Edict of Reorganization), aiming modernization of the state and the public (Enlil 1999, 286). Second one was the earthquake happened in 1855, which destroyed two thirds of the city. After Reorganization Reforms, changes were experienced in the urban space, and development planning activities started after the 1855 earthquake. Destruction of two thirds of the city in the 1855 earthquake made it easier to do interventions to the city. Development works were carried out by the Governors of the city only in that period. During this process, new buildings were constructed in the city centre, while major changes were made in the transportation system.
4.2.2.1 New Functions Incorporated in the Historical City City Centre
Changes in the city management and institutional structure with Reorganization Reforms in the 19th century continued with the start of site selection of public structures, with different functions, in the urban space (Enlil 1999, 286; Tanyeli 1999, 16; Tekeli 1987, 81; Kaygalak 2008, 190).
During the restructuring process of the Historical City Centre, the Government Office56, which was the symbol of the new management form, and the Municipality57 were built in
56 The Government Office was built in 1863 on the east of the historical trade centre, where Atatürk Statue is in now. The building was burned down in a fire in 1922 (Saint Laurent 1996, 111).
57 The Municipality was built in 1879 close to Saray (Hükümet) Street, connecting the Government Office to the Grand Mosque (Saint Laurent 1996, 88).
58
the city centre. Other usages in the city centre in this period were post office58, theatre59, museum60 and police station (Saint Laurent 1996, 111).
Improvements in the traditional centre of the city were not limited to construction of administrative buildings, but also new buildings like traditional market around Bedesten and the surrounding as well as different trade buildings such as banks61, office blocks and silk factories62 (Dörtok Abacı 2005, 158).
Due to increasing numbers of visitors with the impact of external trade developed in the 19th century, hans became insufficient for accommodation functions and hotels63 started to emerge in the urban pattern.
In addition to these, places to meet the leisure and entertainment needs of urban dwellers started to appear in the city centre and the vicinity. There are many taverns and boza (tick, slightly fermented drink) houses in Setbaşı and Balıkpazarı (Kaplanoğlu 2003, 38-39; Erder 1976, 267).
New commercial buildings and administrative and cultural structures were built at the beginning of the 20th century as in the 19th century (Dostoğlu, Oral 1999, 221). Changing production modes leaded to changes in the consumption patterns (Işın 1985, 546). Due to this changing sense of consumption, traditional structure started to change, and shops and stores selling luxury import goods started to emerge in addition to traditional shops and
58 In the process of establishment of new economic relations and restructuring of the state, communication system established with messenger system before the 19th century under control of the military class was changed and Ottoman delivery system was established. Later in 1856 wire system was established (Tekeli 1999, 17).
59 The theatre was built in 1879 opposite of the Government Office (Saint Laurent 1996, 113-114).
60 A museum was opened in 1910s close to Mecidiye Street (Saint Laurent 1996, 141; Kaygalak 2008, 191).
61 As a result of increasing commercial activities, money and loan institutions like banks started to emerge in Bursa starting from1830s (Kaygalak 2008, 78; Aktüre 1981, v). Towards the end of the 19th century Osmanlı Bank61 and Ziraat Bank branches and Düyun-u Umumiye (Public Depth Administration) office were opened in İpek Han. Bursa Chamber of Industry and Trade was also in the same building in this period (Erder 1976, 237; Laurent 1989, 142).
62 Towards middle of the 19th century, scale and organization change in silk production resulted in incorporation of factories into the traditional pattern. The first factory was opened in 1838. By the 1860s, factories reached to a certain density as new spatial forms in two different parts of the city (for more information, please see Suphi Bey Map). At the time of the preparation of Suphi Bey Map, there were two separate factory zones, homogenous in themselves. By 1860s, factories concentrated along Gökdere and Cilimboz Rivers. Furthermore, factories were located sporadically in a couple of places close to the city centre and on the northern extreme towards Bursa plain (Erder 1976, 210-220).
63 European traveller Georges Perrot, notes that Bursa was the only city with a hotel in Asia Minor, in his travel notes penned in 1864 (Günaydın ve Kaplanoğlu 2000, 142). There were 8 hotels in 1893 and this number increased to 21 in 1907. Some of these are located in Setbaşı, while the majority are on Çekirge Road (Kaplanoğlu 2003, 41; Dörtok Abacı 2005, 110).
59
markets around the Ulucami and the surrounding64 (Dörtok Abacı 2007, 181). As a result, hans became unfunctional (Yenen 1987, 91; Oğuzoğlu 1999, 44).
4.2.2.2 Reformation of the Physical Structure in the 19th Century
Development planning activities for the city started after the earthquake in 1855. In the reconstruction process of Bursa, first cadastral plan of the city was drawn by Suphi Bey in 185765 (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 45). The plan is called “1862 Suphi Bey Map” in various sources as it is printed in 1862. Further planning activities were carried by the Governors commissioned in the city66. Destruction of two thirds of the city in 1855 earthquake made it easier for Ahmet Vefik Pasha to do interventions.
Development activities in the 19th century were operations of opening the main routes of the city. Aim of these operations was to create road systems facilitating transportation in the organic street pattern of the city. In this context, it was aimed to transform the existing roads of the city, convenient for pedestrian and animal traffic with blind streets, into a road system convenient for vehicle traffic (Dörtok Abacı 2007, 178; Kaygalak 2008, 179). For this purpose, firstly Saray (Atatürk) Street, passing from the south of the Grand mosque in the east-west direction, was widened during Ahmet Vefik Pasha period (Tekeli 1999, 19).
64 Orman Efendi opened a shoe store opposite of the Mosque. Next to the Public Dept Administration Office in İpek Han, there was a shop belonging to Monsieur Benesason, where such goods like all kinds of watches, bracelets, earrings, imported barley water and brandies were sold. There is a store of American brand Singer sewing machines in Kuyumcular Çarşısı (Jewellers Bazaar), number 158 (Oğuz 1999, 41).
65 Suphi Bey Map is a document revealing the condition of the city before Reorganization Reforms were implemented in the city.
66 -- Between 1863–1864 and 1879–1882 Ahmet Vefik Pasha was the Governor. Major development works were carried out in this period (Oğuz 1999, 41).
-- Nazif Pasha was the Governor between 1883 and 1885. Priority was given to outside roads rather than the inside ones. Uludağ and Mudanya roads were constructed (Oğuz 1999, 41).
-- Mahmud Celalüddin Pasha was the Governor between 1889 and 1891. Haner city roads were arranged and most of the monuments, demolished during 1855 earthquake, were repaired in this period (Oğuz 1999, 43).
-- Ahmet Münir Pasha was the governor between 1891 and 1897. Maksem Street was opened in this period. Roads which were not completed by Ahmet Vefik Pasha were completed (Oğuz 1999, 43).
-- Reşit Mümtaz Pasha was the governor between 1903 and 1906. Fevzi Çakmak Street was connected to Santral Garaj neighbourhood in this period. Cumhuriyet and Altıparmak streets were opened (Oğuz 1999, 43).
Interventions done by the governors served the city and affecting the physical structure can be followed in the 1910 map.
60
In Ahmet Münir Pasha period, Maksem street started to be opened (Mecidiye street was extended towards Maksem street), unfinished roads around Ulucami were completed (Tekeli 1999, 19).
During governor Mümtaz Reşit Pasha period, main and the densest, even today, transportation axes were opened. Mediciye Street going down from Maksem to Şehreküsü, Hamidiye (Atatürk) Street and the street known as Fevzi Çakmak today were completed (Batkan 1996, 3).
As a result of interventions of the Governors, which also affected the physical structure of the city, the historical commercial centre, which enlarged to a very wide area at the second part of the 16th century, turned into the area bounded with Atatürk (Saray, Hükümet) street on the south, İnönü street on the east, Cumhuriyet (Hamidiye) street on the north and Cemal Nadir Street on the west at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century (Figure 4.3).
During the road opening operations, many historical buildings were destroyed completely or partially. The north-eastern corner of Pirinç Han was destroyed and Tahıl Han was divided into two sections during construction of Hamidiye (Cumhuriyet) street (Çakıcı 2008, 39). Furthermore, some parts of Karacabey Han and Eski Yeni Han were destroyed. Some parts of Kapan Han were destroyed during opening of Atatürk Street and eastern wing of İpek Han67 was destroyed during construction of Mecidiye Street coming down from Maksem to Şehreküstü (Tekeli 1999, 19; Batkan 1996, 249) (Figure 4.3).
4.2.3. Development of the Historical City Centre in the 20th Century
Transformation process started with construction of administration and cultural buildings under influence of Westernization in the 19th century continued developing in the 20th century. Three different processes affecting the spatial structure of the Historical City Centre occurred in this period. First of these was the articulation of new usages in the city
67 İpek Han was renovated after the 1958 fire.
61
Development Activities in the 19th Century
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE 19th CENTURY
Commercial Area in the Second Half of the 16th Century
Open Roads in the 19th Century
1
Cumhuriyet Street
2
Atatürk Street
3
Cemal Nadir Street
4
Inönü Street
5
Fevzi Çakmak Street
Commercial Buildings Effected from Development Activities in the 19th Century
A
Pirinç Han
B
Karacabey Hanı
C
Eski Yeni Han
D
Tahıl Han
E
Ipek Han
F
Kapan Han
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 4.3. Development Activities in the 19th Century
centre with industrialization of the city. The second one was the period of change in the spatial distribution of functions located in the Historical City Centre due to hazards especially the Grand Bazaar fire in occurred 1958. Some functions located in the Historical City Centre moved into other parts of the city in this process. The last one was the process of change in the Historical City Centre as a result of the planning activities.
A
B
C
D
E
F
3
2
5
1
4
62
4.2.3.1. New Functions Incorporated in the City Centre
Changes in the economic and social life of the city were observed with the establishment of the Organized Industry Zone in the 1960s. In this period of change, some new functions were incorporated in the city centre. While the hans were used as offices and shops of silk traders; banks, insurance institutions and independent business offices emerged around the traditional market in this period (Üstündağ 1999, 113). Yapı ve Kredi Bank, Central Bank and Whole Sale Market Hall were built and “Heykel”, which is still the most important town square, was developed (Oğuz 1999, 183). Usages responding to social and cultural needs of the city such as hotels, shops, patisseries, as well as relatively modern commercial uses were located on Atatürk Street. In addition, passages and commercial buildings began to form in this process.
In the 20th century, administrative and cultural buildings appeared in the city centre in addition to commercial structures. In this period, services like law firms associated with governmental agencies established in the 19th Century, such as the provincial hall, the municipality, and the courthouse were located in the city centre (Tekeli 1999, 26).
As an indicator of changes in economic life again in this period, “Bursa Chamber of Industry and Commerce” was built in the open area between Fidan Han and Geyve Han in 1973. Transformation process of the Historical City Centre continued with establishment of Gökçen Office Blok on Cumhuriyet Street in 1979. In the following years Doruk Office Blok and Birleşik Onur Office Blok were located on this axis. By 1990s, shopping malls came into the picture as an indicator of changing consumption habits (Vural 2007, 305).
Spatial change in the Historical City Centre in the 2000’s is the covering of Uzun Çarşı (Figure 4.4). As a reflection of changing consumption habits, owners of the shops in the Historical City Centre demanded application of the spatial insight of the shopping malls in their space. These demands of the shop owners and the customers were taken into account in the improvement works and Uzun Çarşı area was covered on top. Facades of the two-floor shops were renovated during the creation of top cover (Vural 2007, 305).
63
Figure 4.4. Uzun Çarşı in 2010
4.2.3.2. Reformation of Functional Structure
Historical commercial centre was severely affected from the earthquakes and fires68. The Historical Commercial Centre was mostly affected from the Covered Bazaar fire in 1958. In this fire, which destroyed almost the whole market, Sahaflar Çarşısı, Emir Han, Kapalıçarşı, Aynalı Çarşı, Kuyumcular Çarşısı, Gelincik Çarşısı, Yorgancılar Çarşısı, Arakiyeciler, Saraçhane, Bakırcılar and Köfüncüler Çarşısı ve Çıra Pazarı was completely burned down, while Koza Han and Ticaret Borsası were burned partially.
The Grand Bazaar fire of 1958 leaded the changes in the commercial centre69 (Figure 4.5). Usages forming the traditional centre before the fire mainly included retail trade, small manufacturing and warehouse to a limited extent, wholesale trend, professional offices (doctors and lawyers), bank, insurance companies and brokers and administrative units. Functions in the centre did not go under a significant change in the physical and economic structure until the fire (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan report). Until that date, Kapalı Çarşı was used by mainly silk, textile traders, jewellery stores, shoe stores, herbalists and hardware dealers. In the streets next to Kapalı Çarşı, bookshops, jewellers, dowry and gift shops, towel shops, furnishers were located. On Ulu Cami side, there are saddlers, coppersmiths, sabot sellers and some shops selling food products.
68 See Appendix C for disasters affecting the physical structure of historical city centre
69 See Appendix D for some photos about Kapalıçarşı fire in 1958
64
Figure 4.5. Kapalıçarşı in 1960 (http://www.bursadabugun.com/galeri/haber/1958-kapalicarsi-yanginindan-geriye-bu-kareler-kaldi-2143/23.html, last accessed, 07 09 2011)
After 1958 fire, extensions of business activities started to form along the roads coming out of the centre, some of the businesses were located between Zafer Meydanı and Şehreküstü (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan report). Some activities regarding automotive industry took part between Fevzi Çakmak Street and the centre. Trade, mainly meeting consumption needs of upper and middle class, developed towards Altıparmak Street and Setbaşı. During restoration of the Historical City Centre, small manufacturing replaced some traditional functions like bookshops, saddlers, coppersmiths and sabot sellers. Shoe manufacturers moved back to Pirinç Han, shoe sellers moved under Zafer Square, coppersmiths first to an area between İnönü Street and Gazcılar Street and then moved to the small industry zone (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan report). After 1958 fire, small shops with looms close to the Historical City Centre changed and were replaced by the wholesale and retail units (Vural 2007, 142). Upper floor of Koza Han, previously used as law offices, became silk bazaar70.
4.3. Planning Activities Which Affected the Development of Historical City Centre
While development of the city during Ottoman Period was directed via partial plans, plans covering the whole city were prepared during Republic Period (Tekeli 1999, 17). After
70 Top floor of Koza Han was used by law offices when the Courthouse was in the city centre. After relocation of the Courthouse and renovation works upon 1958 fire, top floor of the han started to be used by silk traders.
65
1960s, city form was reshaped due to rapid urban population increase and city’s changing position into an important industrial centre. In addition to urban population increase as a result of industrialization, the great fire of 1958 in the city centre had an important role in re-planning of the city71.
When development of Bursa city is reviewed, three main breaking points affecting spatial structure of the Historical City Centre can be seen. First of them is the period starting with Imperial Edict of Reorganization, in which traditional structure of the Ottoman Empire started to break. Planning activities were carried out by the Governors in this period. The Historical City Centre was reshaped via new axis and connections within the scope of re-development of the city. The second was the transition period from the Ottoman to the Republic. The third breaking point was the planning activities after the 1958 Grand Bazaar fire.
In this section, spatial change of the historical trade centre on these breaking points is evaluated three different periods: planning activities before the republican era, planning activities between 1923 and 1960 and planning activities after 1960. Main decisions of the existing planning activities regarding spatial and functional structure will be emphasized.
4.3.1. Planning Activities before the Republican Period
The first planned approach towards the city in the Ottoman period became an agenda after the 1855 earthquake, which destroyed the city significantly. After this period, development legislation started to form and first partial plans started to be implemented in the fire zones in the Ottoman Empire (Tekeli 1999, 18).
Maps drawn in this period give important information on spatial change of the city. The first of these maps is the oldest schematic plan of the city drawn by German traveller Niebuhr in 1767 (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 72). The second one is the first cadastral plan of the city drawn by Suphi Bey in 1862 (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 45). The third one is 1880 map prepared by a French
71 See Appendix E for planning history of Historical City Centre
66
insurance company (Kaygalak 2008, 196). Another one is 1910 map, obtained from the archive records.
4.3.1.1. Niebuhr Plan
In this plan72, the city is bounded by Muradiye Külliyesi (social complex) on the west and Yıldırım Külliyesi on the east. Orhan Mosque and the hans are located in the centre of the city (Figure 4.6). When Niebuhr plan and Suphi Bey map, prepared in 1862, are compared, it is observed that the urban pattern did not change for almost a hundred years (Bursa City Museum Archive).
1 İç Kale
2 Yer Kapı
3 Zindan Kapı
4 Kaplıca Kapısı
5 Hisar Kapısı
6 Tophane
7 Ulucami
8 Orhan Gazi Mosque
9 Yeşil Türbe
10 Yıldırım Mosque
11 Emir Sultan Mosque
12 Yeşil Mosque
13 Muradiye Mosque
14 Yıldırım Darüşşifası
15 Paşa Konağı
16 Ermeni District
17 Rum District
18 Musevi District
Figure 4.6. 1767 Niebuhr Plan (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 72)
4.3.1.2. Suphi Bey Map
In the re-construction period of Bursa after 1855 earthquake, first cadastral plan of the city was drawn by Suphi Bey in 1857 (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 45). This plan is called “1862 Suphi Bey Map” in various resources as it was printed in 1862 (Figure 4.7).
72 Niebuhr, who visited the city in 1767, published the city plan he prepared for Bursa in his work called “Travel Notes on Arabia and the surrounding countries”.
67
Figure 4.7. Suphi Bey Map (Osmangazi Municipality Archive)
1862 year map gives general information on spatial organization of the city in the second
half of the 19th century. It can be seen on this map that the historical trade centre
contained mainly religious buildings in addition to hans, baths and bazaars. It can also be
seen that transportation network of the city was dominated by blind alleys. Long and wide
streets cannot be observed in that period. Existence of building and street names on the
map makes it easier to determine the locations of the hans and the bazaars. Interventions
done in the later periods can also be detected.
Two industrial centres (one is on the waterfront of Cilimboz creek and the other around
Gökdere) and a trade centre were formed in the city in 1860s (Bursa City Museum Archive).
Settlement areas had a sporadic and separated structure in that period.
4.3.1.3. The Map Date in 1880
1880 year map gives detailed information on the city as a whole. Straight and wide streets,
which were not on 1862 map, draw attention on this map. Among these streets, Gemlik
Street (as Yeni Yol) constructed by Ahmet Vefik Pasha, İpekçilik Street (as Setbaşı Street),
68
Çekirge Road; widened and modernized Saray Street and Hamidiye and Maksem Streets constructed after Vefik Pasha can clearly be seen. Furthermore, right angle planning of Setbaşı, Hacı Baba and Umur Bey Neighbourhoods and some parts of Kayan Bazaar on the northwest of Irgandı Bridge stands out (Kaygalak 2008, 197).
Names of neighbourhoods, streets and roads are written on the map. In addition, names of the hans, the judiciary, the prison, schools, baths, the cemetery and factories can be seen on the map (Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8. The Map Date in 1880 (Bursa City Museum Archieve)
4.3.1.4. The Map Date in 1910
In 1910 year map obtained from the archives, transformation in the transportation scheme can be observed (Figure 4.9). In this map, the railway is presented in detail with all the stations and roads developed around. It can be seen that the city developed towards Çekirde in this period. A settlement area, between Namazgah Creek and Işıklar Military School on the southeast of the city, draws the attention. When it comes to the changes in road network, a new road (Acemler Street) connecting Acemler Garden to old spa region is opened. Other than this, Mahmudiye Street, parallel to the railway, and Mecidiye Street,
69
starting from Mahmudiye Street and going towards Maksem, on the south edge, via city centre are among the new roads. Furthermore, it can be observed that Hamidiye Street is extended up to the Castle (Kaygalak 2008, 198).
Figure 4.9. The Map Date in 1910 (METU archives)
4.3.2. Planning Activities between 1923 and 1960
Planning activities covering the whole city were carried out in this period. First of these planning activities was Lörcher plan in 1924. First planning study of the city of Bursa was carried out by German Karl Lörcher in 1924. This plan prepared on the base map obtained in 1912, completely disregarded the existing pattern under the influence of garden city movement, and was not fully implemented The second one is Prost plan prepared in 1940. Prost plan is the first development plan prepared for the city.
4.3.2.1. 1924 Lörcher Plan
In the Lörcher Plan, first urban plan of the city of Bursa, cultural, education and commercial areas were located on Atatürk Street (Figure 4.10). The area between Cumhuriyet Street, Atatürk Street, İsmet Pasha Street and Fevzi Çakmak Street was described as the city centre (Archives of the Bursa City Museum). Provincial Hall, Revenue Office and Courthouse as
70
administrative buildings were built after 1925, Atatürk Monument and Tayyare Culture Centre were built in 1931 and Community Centre was built in 1940 in line with the decisions of this plan (Akkılıç 2001, 80). The implemented section of this plan the city is the fortress entrance of Atatürk Street (Batkan 1996, 249; Vardar 2008, 84). With Lörcher Plan, an administrative centre articulated to the commercial centre was created. Atatürk Street was the main axis of the city, as it is today, and strengthened the central location of the Hanlar Area (Bağbancı 2007, 97).
Figure 4.10. Lörcher Plan (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 78)
4.3.2.2. 1940 Prost Plan
In this plan, there were proposals for the conservation of historical city centre and establishment of a small industry area (Figure 4.11). One of the main objectives of the Prost Plan was widening of the roads. The plan was implemented to a large extent. Darmstat Street (on Muradiye Social complex axis), Gazcılar Street (on Emir Sultan Mosque axis), Fomara Street (Fevzi Çakmak Street-Grand Mosque Axis), Atatürk Street (Yeşil Türbe axis) were opened in line with the decisions of this plan (Altaban 1999, 170; Vardar 2008, 84.,
71
Batkan 1996, 249; Kaplanoğlu 2008, 79). Opening barren parts of Bursa Plain for settlement, regeneration of old housing zones are the important decisions of the Prost Plan. Development of Çekirge as a thermal and tourism centre, establishment of an industrial zone on Gemlik Road on the south of the railway are also foreseen in this plan (Batkan 1996, 249).
Figure 4.11. 1940 Prost Plan (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 80)
4.3.3. The Post-1960 Planning Period
Re-planning of the city came into agenda due to rapid population increase on one hand, the big fire of 1958 in the city centre on the other hand. The most important planning activity affecting the development of the historical centre was Piccinato Plan prepared in 1960 and Bursa Central (Reyhan-Kayhan-Hanlar District) Conservation- Development Project.
4.3.3.1. 1960 Piccinato Plan
The historical city centre and its surrounding were destroyed by 1958 fire. Repair and renovation projects of this region were prepared under the supervision of Piccinato
72
(Altaban 1999, 170; Bursa Defteri 2000, 20). Piccinato Plan basically aimed conservation of natural and historical values of the city and a dense urban development in addition to this (Batkan 1996, 251). Piccinato and his team carried out researches to determine the situation before the fire. As a result of these studies, it was detected that the barracks incorporated in the historical pattern were completely destroyed and hans had minor damage (Vural 2007, 299). Based on these findings, Piccinato proposed restoration of hans and bedesten in line with their original structures and clearance of the shops around them. An additional floor was designed under Kapalı Çarşı (the Covered Bazaar), which was a single storey building before the fire. A two storey passage, with a courtyard in the middle, was designed in the area known as Bakırcılar Çarşısı (coppersmith bazaar) today. New constructions were proposed for the shops in İvaz Pasha Bazaar, and the shops between Eski İpek Han and bedesten. Functional changes such as cafes and restaurants were proposed for the baths in Hanlar District (Vural 2007, 299). In the period of Historical City Centre restoration after the fire, alternative commercial areas were foreseen (Figure 4.12). Altıparmak and Fevzi Çakmak streets became important trade axis in this period (Kırayoğlu, Tanyeli vd. 1999, 10-25).
Figure 4.12. Piccinato Plan (Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Archive)
73
Within the context of this project, Kapalı Çarşı (the Covered Bazaar), completing the pattern was designed, while han buildings were being rehabilitated and their surrounding was being cleared. Kapalı Çarşı project was designed as a three storey building, with addition of a basement floor, by opening stairs on the eastern and the western entrances (Akkılıç, 2003, 74; Canpolat 1999, 24). When the businesses in Kapalı Çarşı were in operation again, functions were observed to be changed especially around Kapalı Çarşı. Traditional functions (bookshops, saddlers, coppersmiths, cradle sellers etc.) and small artisans manufacturing handmade goods moved away from the centre (Üstündağ, 1999, 105-106).
After 1960s, as a result of industrialization and increase in the number of motor vehicles, plans prepared by Prost and Piccinato fell behind the growth rate of the city. Construction and building height controls were implemented in the city centre and functions in the centre were moved to the north of the city between 1976 and 1984 in order to conserve historical pattern and the traditional centre. The centre suffered from rapid urbanization and this situation continued until the “site decision” in 1978.
4.3.3.2. 1979 High Council of Immovable Historical Assets and Monuments (GEEAYK) Decisions
Archaeological and natural sites of the city were specified in 1978 and conservation principles were determined by Gayri Menkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu (High Council of Immovable Historical Assets and Monuments) with the decision numbered 10888 in 1979. With this decision, central business district was moved to the north of Kayhan Neighbourhood, to Haşim İşcan Street axis, while function of the existing trade centre, Hanlar District, was preserved (GEEAYK 1979).
Historical City Centre was declared as Urban Site, with some part being Urban Site Conservation Area, with the decision of High Council for Conservation numbered 1918 in 1986.
74
4.3.3.3. 1989 Bursa Historical City Centre (Reyhan-Kayhan-Hanlar Districts) Conservation- Development Project
With this planning activity73 carried by Middle East Technical University, it was aimed to enhance the integrity of the city centre and living standards by conserving the historical values of the city centre. Bursa Historical Centre Conservation-Development Plan covers a an area of 46.3 acres including Reyhan Neighbourhood on the north, Kayhan Neighbourhood on the east and Hanlar District (Figure 4.13). Roads surrounding the project area are Cemal Nadir Street on the west, Atatürk Street on the south, Haşim İşçan Street on the north and Gökdere natural threshold on the east (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development Plan Report).
Hanlar District is a developed trade centre of the city with Ottoman city characteristics; Kayhan is a neighbourhood competible with this centre and Reyhan is a neighbourhood with historical settlement pattern but with a semi-rural town view despite its proximity to the centre. The project area covers historical centre of Bursa and its close vicinity (Figure 4.14). Macro planning policy of the plan was conservation of historical environment and optimization of central function development, due to high amount of historical inputs in this region and its current city centre function (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development Plan Report).
73 1/1000 scale Bursa Central Reyhan- Kayhan Hans Area Reconstruction Plan for Conservation, prepared based on the studies on digitization of this plan prepared by Middle East Technical University (METU) and representation of plan changes on the plan, was approved by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Council decision dated 13.06.2005 and numbered 195-350 in line with Osmangazi Municipal Council decision dated 06.04.2005 and numbered 394 and the prepared plan entered into force with decision of BKTVKBK dated 25.08.2005 and numbered 886.
75
Figure 4.13. 1989 Bursa Historical City Centre (Reyhan-Kayhan-Hanlar Districts) Conservation- Development Project (Osmangazi Municipality archive)
Figure 4.14. Boundry of Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan (google earth image)
76
Objectives of Bursa Historical Centre Conservation and Development Plan are determined as (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development Plan Report):
1- Central area which gained commercial centre identity in historical development, surrounded by Atatürk Street on the south, Cumhuriyet Street on the north, Cemal Nadir Street on the west and Inonu Street on the east, should protect its economical function and liveliness.
2- Conservation, improvement, renovation and development sub-targets in the central area should be in consistency with development of functional structure of the centre.
3- In the conservation and development of built and open areas in the centre;
 Congestion, chaos and noise created by increased traffic should be eliminated and organized.
 Reyhan Housing Area, where physical pattern started to get old and started to became a ruined urban area, should be improved, partially renewed, be provided with infrastructure and social services, and low-middle income social groups should be located in this area.
4- While central activities and usages keep their areas, some usages like manufacturing, storage and wholesale trade should be directed with a plan, in line with their demand to be moved from the centre.
5- Buildings and open areas, trade axis in the Hans Area, emphasizing the historical identity of Bursa, should be conserved, renovated and renewed, unfunctional buildings should be reused with new functions and opportunities for their protection in terms of economical aspects should be created.
6- Old and new buildings in the central conservation, development and renovation areas should be promoted to be at upmost architectural standards.
7- Accessibility, service organization in Bursa city centre should be provided with a traffic management using the existing road network, but arrangement should be done with the basic principle of pedestrian dominance.
Hans area conservation development planning activity aimed at conservation of existing housing structure on the western boundaries of the area, controlling degeneration moving
77
towards inner parts, integration of Kütahya Han, Nilufer Bazaar, Tuz Han, salt bazaar and okçular (archers) axis. In addition, it was aimed to establish new commercial centres as sub-trading zones with inner courtyards on Inonu Street, to use plots to create green areas while protecting blocks on the southeast, or to give service to the vicinity by providing common open areas as inner courtyard (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development plan report; Bağbancı 2008, 101).
Bursa Centre-Reyhan- Kayhan Hans area development plan came into force in 1992 with latest plan changes. In this plan, after determination of urban settlement areas, it was aimed to create six special project areas (Tuzhan and Nilüfer bazaars, Kütahya Han and surrounding shops, old and new Galle Pazarı Han, Davurpaşa bath and its surrounding, Setbaşı Creek recreation areas and shoe sellers market conservation and landscaping project) (3). Decisions regarding special project areas in the plan are as follows (Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation and Development planing decision; Kırayoğlu 2004, 75-78):
 Special project area No 1: Evaluation of Tuzhanı and Nilufer Bazaar and buildings on the south of Tuzhanı, as examples of civic architecture, as a whole and their transformation into commercial use is fundamentall New housing will not be proposed in this area other than light construction.
 Special project area No 2: Kütahya Han will be evaluated with the shops in the vicinity.
 Special project area No 3: Restoration, new use and urban design projects will be prepared in the light of plan of the old and the new Galle Market Hans.
 Special project area No 4: Davut Pasha Bath area no 2 provisions are valid as they are.
 Special project area No 5A (Setbaşı Creek Recreation Area No 1): It will be arranged as publicly open area. Single floor and light construction can be proposed with this aim.
 Special project area No 5B (Setbaşı Creek Recreation Area No 2): will be opened for new usages integrating with existing civic architecture examples.
78
 Special project area No 6 (Ayakkabicilar bazaar): Proposed settlements in the plan will be convenient to design concept of new market established after the fire in Hans Area.
 Special project area No 7 (Fidan Han- Geyve Han Conservation and Landscaping project): Creation of parks, green areas for pedestrian use is fundamental in this area and new settlement will not be proposed. Application will be done in accordance with Urban Design Project, 1/500 scale and at smaller scales when required, prepared by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Research and Planning Commission (APK) Survey Project Branch approved by Conservation Board in the special project area.
In 2000, Historical Pedestrian Axis Project, aiming to consolidate conservation projects prepared at different times for the city centre on a pedestrian track connecting old sub-centres (the social complex and the citadel), was developed as a concept project (Kırayoğlu 2004, 75).
General targets of the project prepared by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality for Hans area are briefly as follows (Bursa Metropoliten Municipality Archive; Bilenser 2003, 130):
• Realization of arrangements appropriate for unique features of the area, reflecting Bursa city identity and historical trade centre characteristics and its conservation;
• Realization of arrangements with the aim of improving liveability and perceptibility in the historical city centre, providing enough services for both pedestrian and vehicle use, developing modern transport scheme, and especially strengthening pedestrian axis;
 Realization of infrastructure improvement works, taking precautions to eliminate visual pollution;
 Determination of priority areas after determination of special project areas in addition to pre-determined public project areas and implementation of urban design and landscaping projects to increase attractiveness of historical city centre;
79
 Extension of historical inventory for Osmangazi region, creation of an inventory for the existing registered buildings in the first step and determination of intervention required for the second step.
4.3.3.4. Other Plans Affected the Historical City Centre
In this section, decisions of the planning activities which affected the development of the Historical City Centre are examined.
1976 Master Plan:
Population target of Piccinato plan for 1980 was 250 000. However, population of the city reached to 350 000 in 1975. As conservation plans of 1960 plan were not prepared on time, density and the number of floor in existing urban pattern increased, especially in the city centre (Figure 4.15). Historical urban pattern was destroyed until site and conservation decisions for the historical city centre were taken in 1978 (Altaban 1999, 171). The city developed haphazardly on Mudanya Road after establishment of the industrial zone in 1966. As a result of these developments, Bursa Master Plan, aiming to decentralizing the city, was prepared by Master Plan Bureau (Nazım Plan Bürosu) in 1976 (Altaban 1999, 171). New industrial areas were proposed and development directions for the city were determined in this plan. A linear urban development was proposed in the east-west direction. However, intensification of the population in the city centre cause land speculation and illegal housing (Batkan 1996, 251). As a result of this, building density around the historical buildings and in their vicinity increased.
80
Figure 4.15. 1976 Master Plan (Bursa Metropolitan Municipality archive)
1984 Master Plan74:
A new planning activity was carried out in 1975 due to incapability of the existing implementation plan against increased population growth rate. It was aimed to create a hierarchy among the centres by creating sub-centres in the settlement areas of the city, which had a single and strong city centre (Vardar 2008, 86). Construction and height of the buildings were controlled in the city centre in order to protect the historical pattern and traditional centre. Textile and related industries moved from traditional hans to new business centres after 1980s (Oğuz 1999, 53) (Figure 4.16).
Figure 4.16. 1984 Master Plan (Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archive)
74 1/5000 scale plan. Development on the plateau on the north of the city is limited with this plan. Plateau protection areas are determined (b). Master plan revisions are done in 1990 and 1995.
81
1995 Master Plan Revision:
1984 Master Plan was revised in 1995. Decisions of 1984 plan, which were not implemented and out of date, were revised. Regarding the centre, there were no new decisions different from the ones in 1984 plan (Figure 4.17).
Figure 4.17. 1995 Master Plan Revision (Bursa Metropoliten Municipality)
1998 Environmental Master Plan:
Reyhan-Kayhan- Hanlar Region was described as “Existing Urban Settlement Area” in the 1/100.000 scale Bursa 2020 Environmental Master Plan approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement on 19.01.1998. According to the plan decisions, it was aimed to prevent population increase and aggregation in the sites and areas of historical identity protection determined in accordance with “The Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage” dated 2863. Moreover, conservation and restoration of the historical centre, which is within the borders of Central planning Area, was essential (Bursa 2020 Environmental Master Plan Report).
82
1/25.000 Scale Central Planning Area Master Plan75:
1/25.000 scale Master Plans were prepared for the areas determined in 1/100.000 scale plan by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, in line with Article 7/b of Metropolitan Municipality Law numbered 5216 and 1/25.000 scale Central Planning Area Master Plan covering the area came into force with the decision of Bursa Metropolitan Municipality dated 16.03.2006 and numbered 177, and this plan was revised and approved in accordance with Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Council decision dated 12.06.2008 and numbered 416 (Figure 4. 18).
Figure 4.18. 1/25.000 Scale Central Planning Area Master Plan (Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archive)
The Historical City Centre was determined as “CBD (Central Business District)” in 1/25.000 scale Central Planning Area Master Plan. In Article 7.3.1 of the Plan Notes of central business districts, it is mentioned that:
“…cbd is an important spatial component of Bursa urban identity and vision. It is an area where projects integrating the area with the city, establishing relationship with historical environment, creating solutions which easing the transportation connections within its area and its surroundings, creating building policies determining occupancy and vacancy rates and locations in the area, supporting Bursa “world vision” at appropriate scales can be produced. In the central business district, commercial, social and administrative (private or public health, education, sports, social and cultural facilities, places of worship, national and international conferences-congress, seminar centre, fair, exhibition, meeting halls), touristic 75 Taken from teh text prepared by Chamber of Urban Planners Bursa Branch including their opinions on the hans area (www.spo.org.tr/.../a1bf96b7165e962_ek.doc last access 24. 03. 2011)
83
facilities, residential use, technical infrastructure facilities and functions required by these uses can be located. Flammable, combustible or explosive storages cannot be done in these areas. Manufacturing activities creating danger for environmental health, noise, viual and air pollution cannot be located...” (Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archive).
1/5000 scale Osmangazi Municipality Master Plan76
1/5000 scale Osmangazi Municipality Master Plan was prepared by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality in line with Article 7/b of Metropolitan Municipality Law and in accordance with 1/25.000 scale Central Planning Area Master Plan decisions and the plan was approved with decision of Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Council dated 17.04.2008 and numbered 291 and came into force (Figure 4.19).
Figure 4.19. 1/5000 scale Osmangazi Municipality Master Plan (OsmangaziMunicipality archive)
The Historical City Centre was determined as “CBD (Central Business District)” in 1/5.000 scale Osmangazi Municipality Master Plan. According to the Article 2.1 of the Plan Notes:
76 Taken from teh text prepared by Chamber of Urban Planner Bursa Branch including their opinions on the hans area (www.spo.org.tr/.../a1bf96b7165e962_ek.doc last access 24. 03. 2011)
84
“…cbd is an important spatial component of Bursa urban identity and vision. It is an area where projects integrating the area with the city, establishing relationship with historical environment, creating solutions which easing the transportation connections within its area and its surroundings, creating building policies determining occupancy and vacancy rates and locations in the area, supporting Bursa “world vision” at appropriate scales can be produced. In the central business district, commercial, social and administrative (private or public health, education, sports, social and cultural facilities, places of worship, national and international conferences-congress, seminar centre, fair, exhibition, meeting halls), touristic facilities, residential use, technical infrastructure facilities and functions required by these uses can be located. Flammable, combustible or explosive storages cannot be done in these areas. Manufacturing activities creating danger for environmental health, noise, viual and air pollution cannot be located. Housing areas can be proposed in order to maintain persistence in central business districts and most rational benefit from urban social and technical infrastructure at any time of the day” (Osmangazi Municipality archive).
85
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL FUNCTIONS ON AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS IN THE
CASE OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
Emergence of new consumption behaviours within the frame of changing lifestyles decreased the demand for traditional functions contained by Historical City Centres. Historical City Centres, where traditional and small mills are located, started to lose their importance in line with the changing needs. Historical buildings are shaped according to social, cultural and economical structure of the era they belong to and they reflect the culture of that era. Commercial buildings, built in line with the conditions of that period in terms of size and spatial structure, used for different purposes today. In addition to this, opening of shopping malls, meeting all kind of needs, all around the city decreased the demand for the historical centre. As a result, some of the shopkeepers in the historical centre destroyed the authentic characteristics of the commercial buildings in order to present new usages responding to new consumer needs.
In this section, siting of commercial functions in the urban area and their coexistence relations were examined in order to determine which kind of commercial functions are compatible to the unique structure of the historical commercial building. Spatial change of commercial functions is reviewed in two time periods: in the 16th century, when the historical commercial centre completed its formation, and at the present time. It is examined how the authentic commercial functions changed in the hans region and then how the hans in the study area were affected from this change and which functions should not exists in these buildings.
86
5.1. Spatial Organizations of Commercial Functions in the Historical City Centre in the Historical Process
Bursa bazaar is among the best examples representing bazaar composition in Turkish cities (Cezar 1985, 90). Bursa It is the most remarkable example presenting how the location problem of the bazaar is solved in Turkish cities, how different types of commercial buildings come together by complementing each other, and how other buildings not carrying commercial features are positioned around the bazaar (Cezar 1985, 90).
In this section, coexistence of the commercial functions is analyzed under two separate periods: establishment period in which the bazaar completed its development (16th century) and at the present time. There is need of a common classification to make an evaluation due to absence of space for the bazaar operated in the establishment period and emergence of different activity groups in the present day. Thus, commercial uses in the bazaar are evaluated by classification based on the activity area.
5.1.1 Functional Changes during the Formation of the Historical City Centre
Functional relations of the artisan branches related to trade and handicrafts in the city centre of Bursa, which started to develop in the 14th century, continued without any changes until the 19th century. In this period, the Historical City Centre developed with the formation of bazaars organized as guilds on the roads connecting the hans, with differentiated production and sales functions and specialized in certain areas77 (Tankut 1973, 775; Yenen 1987, 91).
When traditional functional structure of the bazaar is examined, it is observed that all the commercial and industrial areas are next to each other and feed each other. The bazaar is composed of independent units in a production process in which the producer and the trader is the same most of the time, and its growth is an organic one which is parallel to growth of trade density (Kuban 2010, 22). Certain functions are located in the same area in
77 See Appendix F for some photos about bazaars in the Ottoman period
87
the internal organization of bazaars formed on the basis of a guild system. For example, tailors are located close to the area of fabric sellers. There were no food and beverage sellers in the hans as eating and drinking were not welcomed until the end of the 19th century (Uysal 2004, 68). There were no kebap shops between the dry goods shops and no carder shops in the calm markets, while there were saddlers, tanners and shoe sellers next to the leader sellers in the old bazaar structure (Sakaoğlu 2010, 256).
Sakaoğlu’s classification is used to determine functional changes of bazaars operated in the establishment period and spatial distribution of their new functions appeared in the present conditions78 (Sakaoğlu 2010).
5.1.1.1. Bazaars Active in the Food Trade Market
Bazaars active in the food trade market are; Attarlar (attars) bazaar, Kebapçılar (kebap sellers) bazaar and Şekerciler (candy sellers) bazaar. These bazaars are located closed to each other on the north of Ulu Cami (Figure 5.1).
Attarlar (attars) bazaar: The street between Aynalı Bazaar and Emir Han, close to Ulu Cami is named as Attarlar Bazaar (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 63-63).
Kebapçılar bazaar: It is also named as Köfteciler bazaar. It is on the road reaching to Bedesten from the north of Kapan Han and Doğan Gözü Han (Yenen 1987, 161).
Şekerciler bazaar: It is located between Ulu Cami and Bakırcılar Bazaar, close to Kapan Han.
5.1.1.2. Bazaars Active in the Textile and Clothing Market
These are Alboyacılar bazaar, Çuhacılar bazaar, Taftacılar bazaar, Ketenciler bazaar, Kazzazhane, Erakiyeciler bazaar, Bükümcüler bazaar, Kebeciler bazaar. These bazaars are
78 See Appendix G for the sectoral distribution of majör groups of artisans and craftsman in the Ottoman period.
88
ACTIVITY AREAS BASED ON FUNCTIONS
OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
IN THE 16th CENTURY
Activity Areas
Food Trade
1
Attarlar Bazaar
2
Kebapçılar Bazaar
3
Şekerciler Bazaar
Textile and Clothing
4
Alboyacılar Bazaar
5
Çuhacılar Bazaar
6
Taftacılar Bazaar
7
Ketenciler Bazaar
8
Kazzazhane
9
Erakiyeciler Bazaar
10
Bükümcüler Bazaar
Wood Processing
11
Çıkrıkçılar Bazaar
12
Köfüncüler Bazaar
13
Neccarlar Bazaar
14
Sandıkçılar Bazaar
15
Sepetçiler Bazaar
Leather Processing
16
Postalcılar Bazaar
17
Kavaflar Bazaar
Mine Processing and Weapon production
18
Bakırcılar Bazaar
19
Bıçakcıar Bazaar
20
Saraçlar Bazaar
21
Nalçacılar
Jewellery
22
jewellery
Boundary of Study Area
Reproduced based on Suphi Bey Map in 1862
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.1. Activity Areas Based on Functions of Bursa Historical City Centre in the 16th Century
1
3
2
19
11
20
6
9
16
8
18
5
17
21
7
14
15
13
10
22
12
19
4
89
located in groups close to each other in different parts of the historical city centre. Some of them are located on Uzun Çarşı axis, some other are on the north of Bedesten and the rest is located on the west of Ulu Cami.
Alboyacılar (red dye sellers) bazaar: Kaplanoğlu mentions that there are dyer’s shops in Uzun Bazaar. As mainly red dye is sold in these shops, the bazaar is called Alboyacılar (red dye sellers) (Kaplanoğlu 2003, 65).
Çuhacılar (baize producers) bazaar: Kaplanoğlu states that the bazaar constitutes integrity with Yorgancılar and Sandıkçılar bazaars behind Ertuğrul Mescid (Kaplanoğlu 2003, 106).
Taftacılar (taffeta weavers) bazaar: it is the bazaar where artisans weave taffeta close to Emir Han (Bağbancı 2008, 66).
Ketenciler (ketene producers) bazaar: it is the bazaar, close to Kapan Han, where goods made of ketene are sold (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 197).
Kazzazhane: It is located close to İpek Han. It is the area of silk mills (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 196).
Erakiyeciler bazaar: The bazaar, which still named as Erakiyeciler, is on the street, which is on the east of Ulu Cami.
Bükümcüler bazaar: It is on the south of Bedesten. It has four entrances. Doors opened to Sipahi bazaar on the north, to Bedesten on the south, to Gelincik Bazaar on the east and to İvazpaşa bazaar on the west (Bağbancı 2008, 66).
Kebeciler bazaar: kebeci, attar and kaftan shops are together in the bazaar (Bağbancı 2008, 67 cited Yediyıldız 2003).
90
5.1.1.3. Bazaars Active in Wood Processing
These are Çıkrıkçılar bazaar, Köfüncüler bazaar, Neccarlar bazaar, Sandıkçılar bazaar and Sepetçiler bazaar. These bazaars intensify on the north of Bedesten on the south of the Bakırcılar bazaar and on the north of Okçular bazaar.
Çıkrıkçılar (winders) bazaar: It is on the street next to Okçular (Archers) bazaar (Kaplanoğlu 2003, 104). Today, wooden goods are sold in the bazaar.
Köfüncüler (basket makers) bazaar: It is on the west of Ulu cami, between Kapan Han and Bakırcılar (coppersmiths) Han. Wooden baskets and good are produced in the bazaar (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 206).
Neccarlar (carpenters) bazaar: Yenen mentions that the bazaar is located between Karacabey Han and Spiahi Bazaar (Yenen 1987, 160).
Sandıkçılar (chest makers) bazaar: Kaplanoğlu mentions that the bazaar, which does not exist anymore, was on the southeast of Ertuğrul Mosque (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 253).
Sepetçiler (basket makers) bazaar: some of the basket makers were found close to Tatarlar, some are was found in chicken market (Bağbancı 2008, 68 cited Yediyıldız 2003).
5.1.1.4. Bazaars Active in Leather Processing
These are Postalcılar bazaar and Kavaflar bazaar. One of these bazaars is located in Okçular bazaar, while the other one is located on the south of Bedesten.
Postalcılar (boot makers) bazaar: it is the bazaar, between Tuz bazaar and Nalıncılar Bath, where shoe, boot and clog producers are located (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 248).
91
Kavaflar (shoe makers) bazaar: It is also known as Haffaflar bazaar. It is seen in Suphi Bey map that that it is located on the south of Bedesten. Today, shoe makers are still located in the same area.
5.1.1.5. Bazaars Active in Jewellery and Mine Processing and Weapon Production
These are jewellery stores in the area on the north of Bedesten and Bakırcılar Bazaar, Bıçakçılar bazaar, Saraçlar bazaar, Demirciler bazaar, Nalbantlar and Nalçacılar these bazaars are mainly intensified on the east and the west of the study area.
Bıçakçılar (knife makers) bazaar: Bıçakçılar bazaar is one of the oldest bazaars of Bursa. It is located closed to Tahıl Han (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 87). Today, there is a street named “bıçakçılar” between Çancılar and Tuz Pazarı streets.
Saraçlar (saddlers) bazaar: Kaplanoğlu mentions that it is located on the west of İvaz Paşa Bazaar (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 253).
Demirciler (hammer smiths) bazaar: was located close to Balık pazarı (Bağbancı 2008, 69).
Nalbantlar (blacksmiths): was located opposite of Yoğurt Han (Bağbancı 2008, 69).
Nalçacılar: was located in Haffaflar bazaar (Bağbancı 2008, 69 cited Yediyıldız 2003).
5.1.2. Functional Change in the Historical City Centre Today
In the historical process, spatial and functional changes were experienced in the historical commercial centre due to establishment of the organized industry zone in 1960s. In this change- transition process, some functions continued to exist as they are while some other were replaced by new ones. Moreover, due to rapid development in this process, some functions like bus station, courthouse, storage, and manufacturing were moved outside the centre. De-industrialization of the centres process, experienced in many industrialized
92
countries, weakened the role of the city centre as the economic centre carrying commercial load of the city and turned it into a multi-functional retail trade and service area (Thorns, 2004). Today, retail and wholesale trade, housing, storage, management, health and cultural structures and religious buildings are located in Bursa Historical City Centre in addition to commerce, being the dominant usage. In the detailed land use study carried out in each commercial unit in the study area, it was observed that mainly clothing, footwear, jewellery, home textile, towel, religious good, food, gift and furniture shops are located in the hans regions. Additionally today, business such as internet cafes, cell phone sellers, exchange offices, opticians, and pet shops are increased. Some professions of past are either completely vanished or have only a few representatives such as cutlery makers remained today (Figure 5.2).
In order to determine in which regions the functions in the historical commercial centre concentrated today, a clustering analysis was carried out with the data obtained from the site visit study done in 2010. According to results of this analysis, it is identified that specialized bazaar pattern, based on the guild system emerged in the 14th century, still exists in some parts of the study area.
In order to examine contemporary land use change in the study area, a cluster analysis is carried out with the data obtained from the site study carried out in 2010. Intensification of usages was detected according to activity areas as a result of this analysis79 (Figure 5.3).
5.1.2.1. Bazaars Active in the Food Trade
These are salt bazaar and Nilüfer villagers’ bazaar. It is observed that these bazaars are intensified on the east of Fidan Han and on the south of Tuz Han80.
Tuz bazaar: It is the bazaar where salt and spice traders carried their business once (Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi 2010, 26). It is used for vegetable and fruit trade today.
79 See Appendix H for same photos about bazaars today
80 Other than this, cafes are intensified in Pirinç Han and İç Koza Han today.
93
BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
LAND USE IN 2010
Trade
Residence
Culture
Health
Administrative
Mosque
Storage
Boundary of Study Area
Land use in Detail in 2010
Silk Manufacturer
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Wedding Dress Seller
Shoe Shop
Home Textile
Towel Seller
Quilt Maker
Furnisher
Souvenir Shop
Jewellery
Silversmiths
Jewellery Repair Shop
Hac Equipment Selling
Office
Storage
O
Optician
P
Pharmacy
Pet Shop
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
Tuz Pazarı
Mosque
Cultural Building
Reproduced based on Bursa Historical City Centre Conservation Plan (1989) and Cadastral Map which produced Osmangazi Municipality in 2009
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK NORTH
Figure 5.2. Development of Bursa Historical City Centre before 19th Century
94
ACTIVITY AREAS BASED ON FUNCTIONS
OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
IN 2010
Activity Areas
Food Trade
1
Tuz Pazarı
2
Nilüfer Köylü Pazarı
Textile and Clothing
3
Bakırcılar Bazaar
4
Uzun Bazaar
5
Tuz Pazarı Bazaar
6
Okçular Bazaar
7
Yorgancılar Bazaar
Wood Processing
8
Sipahi Bazaar
9
Gelincik Bazaar
10
İvazpaşa Bazaar
Leather Processing
11
Shoe Shops
Jewellery
Jewellery
Other Functions
12
Silversmiths
13
Phone Shops
14
Opticians
15
Pet Shops
Boundary of Study Area
Reproduced based on Suphi Bey Map in 1862
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.3. Activity Areas Based on Functions of Bursa Historical City Centre in 2010
1
1
1
2
15
15
15
13
6
11
5
13
12
4
3
14
11
11
7
8
9
10
95
Nilüfer Köylü Pazarı (villagers’ bazaar): In the past, it was the place where villagers from surrounding villages sold their products (Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi 2010, 27). Today, it is used by various businesses such as spices, dairy products and vegetable-fruit trade.
5.1.2.2. Bazaars Active in the Textile and Clothing Market
These are Yorgancılar bazaar, Bakırcılar bazaar, Uzun Çarşı tuz pazarı çarşısı and Okçular bazaar81.
Yorgancılar Çarşısı: It composes some part of Kapalı Çarşı It is located on the east of the Covered Bazaar. It was also called Sof Pazarı -Mohair Bazaar. Yarn and cotton tradesmen were located in this bazaar. It is one of the parts that could be recovered in the original condition after 1958 fire (Kaplanoğlu 1996, 307). Today, it is used by quilt and textile tradesmen.
Bakırcılar Çarşısı: Bakırcılar Bazaar starting from the west of the study area extends to Kapalı Çarşı. In the ground floor land use site study in the bazaar, it was observed that the dominant use was ready made clothes seller trade. Other than ready made clothes seller, wedding dress, towel and dowry, shoes and bags, clock maker shops and restaurants do also exist. In interviews done with tradesmen and president of association of the bazaar, it was determined that there was an increase in the number of the ready made clothes seller units, while a decrease in the number of the jewellery stores in the last decade.
Uzun Çarşı: Koza Han is located on the south and Fidan Han is located on the north of Uzun Çarşı, which is located between Kapalı Çarşı and Tuz Pazarı Çarşısı. Other than ready made clothes seller trade, there are functions such as jewellery, dowry, cosmetics, clocks, pharmacy, shoes and bags shops and restaurants. In interviews done with tradesmen and president of association of the bazaar, it was determined that there was no significant change in the land uses in the last decade.
81 Furthermore, household linens are sold in groups in İpek (silk) Han, Geyve Han and Fidan Han, while there are silk traders in KozaHan.
96
Tuzpazarı çarşısı: Tuzpazarı bazaar is located between Kapalı Çarşı and Okçular bazaar. In the land use study carried in the first floor of the bazaar, it was determined that dominant functions in the area are ready made clothes seller and shoes-bags trade. Other than these usages, jewellery, kitchenware, clocks makers, cologne shops and restaurants are available. Trade functions in Tuz Pazarı Çarşısı do not change much as the place is far away from commercial centre and the covered market, which are the most vibrant places of the historical trade centre.
Okçular Çarsıları: The bazaar, which is on the west of the study area, extends to the salt market. It is one of the bazaars whose functional structure changed significantly in time. Okçular Bazaar was established in order to meet weapon requirements of the state (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2007, 32). In addition to arrows, knives and swords production, spinning wheels are produced in the bazaar (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2007, 32). Knife producers started to leave the bazaar after 1970s (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2007, 32). There are only two knife producers in the bazaar today. According to the land use study, main function is ready made clothes seller trade. There are also shoe and bag shops, jewellery shops, dowry shops, kitchenware shops and restaurants, other than ready made clothes seller shops in the bazaar.
5.1.2.3. Bazaars Active in Wood Processing
These are Sipahi bazaar, İvazpaşa bazaar and Gelincik bazaar. Furniture producers are located together on the north of Bedesten. Yenen mentions that there were furniture producers between Karacabey Han and Sipahi bazaar during the establishment period (Yenen 1987, 160). According to the land use study carried out in 2010, main usage activity in the area is furniture production today.
Sipahi Çarşısı: It is located on the north of the Kapalıçarşı. It forms a whole with Karacabey Hanı, Yorgancılar Çarşısı, Çuhacılar Çarşısı and Sandıkçılar Çarşısı close to it. Although it was heavily damaged in 1958 fire, it was rehabilitated with respect to its original condition
97
(Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 343). In 1980s, tradesmen shops mainly composed of quilt makers and furniture makers were located in the bazaar. Today, it is used as a furniture market.
Hacı İvaz Paşa Çarşısı: İvaz Paşa Çarşısı is located on the north of the Kapalıçarşı. The building was reconstructed in 1970, however it lost its original structure during this work (Pay2010, 111). Today, it is mainly used for furniture sale and textile trade.
Gelincik Çarşısı: It is situated in parallel to Sipahi Çarşısı. It was rehabilitated after 1958 fire. In 1980s, various tradesmen including quilt makers were located in it. It was also named as Hallaçlar Çarşısı as it was used by carders (Bağbancı 2010, 201). Today, it is mainly used for furniture sale. Gelincik Çarşısı is mainly occupied by furniture manufacturers. There are also home textile shops and one silk merchant in addition to these.
5.1.2.4. Bazaars Active in Leather Processing
It is observed that shoe shops are located in the area between Bedesten and Kapalı Çarşı and in Okçular bazaar.
5.1.2.5. Bazaars Active in Jewellery and Mine Processing and Weapon Production
Today, jewellery shops are concentrated in the Kapalı Çarşı and the Covered Bazaar. Mine processing and gun producing industries no longer exist.
Kapalı Çarşı: A basement floor under Kapalı Çarşı, which was a single storey building before the 1958 fire, was designed. Ground floor of the bazaar is allocated to pitchmen. When the businesses were in operation in Kapalı Çarşı again after the fire, it was observed that functions, especially the ones around the bazaar, were changed. Traditional functions (bookshops, saddlers, coppersmiths, cradle producers etc.) and artisans producing small handmade items were moved to places away from the centre (Üstündağ, 1999, 105-106). According to first floor land use study carried in the bazaar, main function in the bazaar is
98
determined as jewellery trade. Other than jewellery shops, functions such as ready made clothes seller shops, exchange offices, shoe and bag sellers, clock traders, toy sellers and restaurants exist in the bazaar.
Bedesten: Haner part of the Covered Bazaar is owned by jewellery shops. Functions of the shops around the bazaar are differentiated. There are mainly shoe sellers in the section parallel to the bedesten on the south of the bedesten. On the east of the bazaar jewellery shops and home textile shops, on the west shoe sellers and jewellery shops are located. On the south of the bazaar, different commercial functions such as home textile, jewellery, wedding dress seller, shoe store are located.
5.1.2.6 The Other Functions in Historical City Centre Today
Silver shops are found on the east of Emir Han. Cell phone shops are found on the east of İpek Han, and the rest on İnönü street on the east of Okçular bazaar, Opticians are found on the west of the Ulucami and Pet shops are found on the eats of Pirinç Han, in the area between Fidan Han and the whole sale market hall and on the north of Okçular bazaar.
5.1.3. Evaluation of the Functional Changes in the Bazaar
In the historical process, when land use during establishment is compared to contemporary land use, changes in functional structure of the area is found to be as follows:
Areas where the same functions, which changed their form in time, are found:
 Mobilyacılar (furniture shops) bazaar, which is active in wood processing sector, is still located on the north of the bedesten
 Ayakkabıcılar (shoe shops), active in leather processing is still located in the same area
99
Areas with completely changed structure:
 In the area where saddlers, dealing with leather processing, were located in the 19th century, mainly cell phone shops and pet shops are located today.
 There were bazaars active in the food trade on the north of the Ulucami, while the same area is dominated by bazaars active in home textile and ready made clothes seller trade.
 Bazaars active in mine processing and weapon production in the 19th century are transformed to bazaars active in home textile and ready made clothes seller trade.
 Bazaars active in mine processing and weapon production in the 19th century are transformed to bazaars active in home textile and ready made clothes seller trade.
Shops located on the east-west direction in the study area, except for Kapalı Çarşı, frequently changed their functions in the last decade, while their main function today is ready made clothes seller trading. Other than ready made clothes seller trade, some functions such as pharmacy, optician, bijouterie, cologne, jewellery and silk shops, with different functions, are observed to be in the same site without showing a tendency of spatial clustering. On the other hand, bazaars around the Kapalıçarşı did not evolve in terms of functions. Usages of past continued to select the same sites while transforming in line with the needs of the day.
5.2. Impact of Changing Functions of the Hans on Historical Buildings
Han structures consist of open (courtyard), semi-open (riwaq) and closed (shops) spaces with defined borders. These structures are constructed for three main functions: trade, craft and accommodation. Within the historical process, Bursa hans became locations where a specific product group is manufactured or a specific product groups is stored (Kırayoğlu 2008, 6482).
82 http://www.tarihikentlerbirligi.org/i/YerelKimlik/E_Yerel_Kimlik_Sayi_15.pdf , last access 23. 01. 2012
100
Ownership of historical commerce structures, built to raise funds for charities in the past, changed in time83. Units in the han buildings (room by room) were sold to different persons. As a result of changes in ownership structure, persons intervened with the rooms and common places (courtyard and riwaq) in order to increase their usage area. Additional structures which were not compatible with the authentic characteristics of the buildings, such as mezzanine floors in the rooms owned by persons, covered riwaq, new structures in the courtyard, started to emerge due to lack of supervision and authentic characteristics of the buildings were deteriorated.
5.2.1. Koza Han
It was constructed by Beyazid II in 1491 (Gabriel 1958, 187; Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340). In records, it was also named as Han-ı Cedid, Han-ı Cedid-i Evvel and Simkes Han (Gabriel 1958, 187; Kepeci 1935, 7; Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340). It is located within the city centre and northeast of Ulucami. There are 45 rooms at the ground floor and 50 rooms at the upper floor (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340). This is the biggest han where foreign silk trades accommodate (Ergenç 2010, 54). Silk trades rented one room from each floor and used the room upstairs for staying and the room downstairs for storing stuffs (Oğuz 1999, 187; Cezar 1985, 97). There is also another part constructed east part of the han used for animals and storing. It is not known when these additions were made (Gabriel 1958, 187). Within the 16th Century, people visited Bursa for silk trade mostly accommodate in Koza Han. Trial balance of silk were situated in Emir Han in the period of Orhan Gazi, and then in Ipek Han and Koza Han (Yenal 1996, 37). It was rehabilitated in 1630, 1671 and 1784 (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340). Usages in the upper floors of the han have changed over time. These floors were used as some kind of a hotel before the 1855 earthquake, and they started to be used as storage places after the earthquake84.
Koza Han became the centre of banking and insurance in the 19th and 20th centuries. The ground floor was used for silk and cocoon trade, whiles the upper floor contained law
83 See Appendix I for the ownrship structure of study area.
84 Interview done with Hasan Tunçman, president of Koza Han Association, on 10.07.2010.
101
offices85. Foundations and some government units such as şeriye vekili (minister of religious affairs) were located in Koza Han for a while. With the development of trade in the city, money changers similar to contemporary exchange offices were established after 1876. The Ottoman Bank started to operate in Koza Han in 1875 (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2009, 93). Bursa Chamber of Commerce and Industry was founded in Koza Han in 1889. Ziraat Bank was opened in the han the same year (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2009, 97). Insurance sector widely developed in the First Constitutional Period. In the top floor of Koza Han, İş Bank was opened in 1924, Adapazarı Safety Bank was opened in 1930 and Turkish Trade Bank was opened in 1931. In the middle of the First World War, İtibar-ı Milli Bank was established in Koza Han and operated until 1925. According to archive documents and the records of the Chamber of Commerce, various trade groups, predominated by cocoon and tobacco, were located in Koza Han in 1925. After 1920s, sericulture business started to appear in Koza Han86.
When ownership structure of Koza Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are private, state and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.4).
Dominating functions are determined in the records regarding Koza Han, however, no spatial data showing in which shops these functions were located could be found. Thus, after completion the definition of functional change of the han in the historical perspective based on the data obtained from archive documents, it was determined if there is a relation between the intervention types, mentioned in the board decisions and restoration and restitution reports, and the functions. Today, however, in addition to silk scarves for foreign and domestic tourists, dowry and home textile goods, underwear, silver and giftware are sold in the ground floor of the han (Figure 5.5).
85 Upper floors of the han were used by law offices, as the Courthouse was in the city centre. The law offices left the place when the Courthouse was moved from the area.
86 Recep Garip started sericulture business in Koza Han after 1922. M. Marsel Romangal –Silk producers- has an office in Koza Han. Faik Yılmazipek started sericulture business in the unit number 87 in Koza Han since 1935. Yusuf Ziya Akipek carries sericulture business in the unit number 127 in Koza Han. Tahir Sütmen and his partners carried sericulture business in the unit number 153 in Koza Han in 1938. Fahri Batıca was doing semiculture in the unit number 221 in Koza Han in 1935. Ragıp Armağan was doing sericulture in the unit number 157 in Koza Han in 1935 (Kaplanoğlu and Elbas 2009, 97).
102
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF KOZA HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
State
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.4. Ownership Pattern of Koza Han
When impacts of contemporary commercial functions located in Koza Han on the spatial integrity of the han are examined, it is detected that the shops, other than the corner ones in the basement and some shops next to them, extended their shops until riwaqs in order to increase their usage area (Table 5.1). It is observed that in the shops with storage area needs such as home textile, book seller and shoe sellers, mezzanine floors and basements are constructed in addition to closure of the riwaqs. Although the tea-coffee shop does not have an impact on the unique features of the place, tables, chairs and shades located in big numbers in the courtyard decrease the perceptibility of the place.
103
ground floor
KOZA HAN LAND USE
Silk Manufacturer
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Home Textile
Antique Shop
Shoe Store
Jewellery
Silversmiths
Bookstore
Variety Store
Souvenir Shop
Upper Floor
Ceramist
Office
Storage
Tea Coffee House
Restaurant
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.5. Koza Han Land Use in 2010
104
Table 5.1. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Koza Han
Silk Manufacturer
Ready-made Clothing
Home Textile
Shoe Store
Souvenir Shop
Book Store
jewellery
Silversmiths
Ceramists
Variety Store
Antique Shop
Office
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF KOZA HAN
1
2
Impact on open space
3
+
4
Intense use of courtyard
5
6
7
Impact on semi-open space
8
9
10
Covered Riwaq
11
12
Impact on closed space
13
14
Have a Mezzanine
15
16
Have a Basement
17
18
19
+
Impact on both closed and semi-open space
20
+
21
+
22
+
Covered Riwaq and have a Mezzanine
23
24
25
26
Covered Riwaq and have a Basement
27
28
29
30
Covered Riwaq, have a Mezzanine and Basement
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
+
Function of Shop
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
+
47
+
48
+
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
105
Accordingly, functions and the impacts on the authentic characteristics of the building of the shops in the ground floor are as follows:
▪ Silk manufacturers: There are 9 silk merchants in the first floor of Koza Han. There are mezzanine floors in 50% of these shops. Silk shops on the right and left of han entrance couldnot intervene with the open space due to stairs to the second floor. However, other silk shops increased their usage area by closing the semi-open space.
▪ Restaurants: restaurants in the right corner of Koza Han are used by a single enterprise. In one of the units, a basement floor is opened. Restaurants in the upper left corner of the han are also managed by a single enterprise, a basement is added in one unit, and riwaq is included in another unit. The shop on the left of the han, numbered 93, is used a kebap- lahmacun (pancake with spicy meet filling) restaurant. According to the report prepared by Bursa Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation, dated 15.04.2003 and numbered 01072, a kiln and a kitchen counter, which are not in the original usage of the building, are added at the back of the shop consisting of two sections87. The riwaq is included in the shop and turned into a dining hall Furthermore, a basement is added to the structure.
▪ Offices: all 4 office uses in the first floor of the han included the riwaq to their usage area. During the detailed site study in the area, it is observed that there is a mezzanine floor and a basement floor in the office located in the bottom-right corner of the han. However, during the survey study with the owner and works done in the archive of Osmangazi Municipality License and Supervision Directorate,
it was detected that the office was owned by the restaurant before it started to be used as an office and these interventions were made back then. In addition, it was observed that there was a mezzanine floor in one of the offices in the first floor.
▪ Shoe store: All 4 of the shoe shops included the riwaq in their usage area. Furthermore, 2 of them added a basement floor in the shop. There are 4 shoe sellers in the first floor of the han. All of these shoe sellers intervened with the semi-open space of the han. Furthermore, it is observed that 50% of the shoe shops have mezzanine floors.
87 See Appendix J for some decisions of hans of Bursa Conuncil fort he Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets.
106
▪ Souvenier Shop: both of the 2 souvenir shops included the riwaq to their space and added a basement floor in the shop. One of them also opened a basement floor in the structure of the shop.
▪ Ready-made clothes seller: the only 1 ready made seller shops in the han included the riwaq to the store and added a basement floor.
▪ Jewellery: both of the 2 jewellery stores added the riwaq to the store. One of them also added a basement floor in the shop.
▪ Book store: the only book seller in the han included the riwaq to the store, and had a basement and a basement floor.
▪ Home textile: one of the home textile shops did not do any interventions to the building. 4 of these units added the riwaq into their stores, while 3 of them also added a basement floor. One of them added a basement floor in addition to inclusion of riwaq and a basement floor.
▪ Tea-cofee house: there are 3 tea houses in the han. One of them included the riwaq in the store.
▪ Different merchant groups: usages in this group are antique shop, variety shop and ceramists. Antique shop and ceramists included the riwaq in addition to constructing a basement floor. Variety shop only included a basement floor to the store.
▪ Storage: all 7 storage places in the han have basement floors and covered riwaq.
It is observed that shops selling silk goods are located together in the upper floor of the han (Figure 5.3). Functions of the shops in the upper floor of Koza Han and their impacts on the authentic features of the buildings are as follows (Table 5.2):
▪ Silk manufacturers: 24 of the 47 silk merchant shops in the upper floor of Koza Han added a mezzanine to the store. In addition one of the ortehrs remove the main wall.
▪ Ready-made cloting: 1 ready made seller shop of the han included a mezzanine to the store.
107
Table 5.2. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper
floor of Koza Han
Silk Manufacturer
Ready-made Clothing
Silversmiths
Office
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE
AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
BUILDING IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF
KOZA HAN
1
2 + Impact on closed space
3
4 Have a Mezzanine
5 +
6 + Removing main wall
7
8 + Function of Shop
9
10
11
12 +
13
14 +
15
16 +
17 +
18
19 +
20
21
22 +
23 +
24
25
26 +
27 +
28 +
29 +
30 +
31 +
32
33
34
35
36 +
37 +
38
39
40 +
41
42
43 +
44
45 +
46 +
47
48 +
49
50 +
1
2
3
4
5
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6
17 16
18
19
20
21
22
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 32
108
It is observed that some of usages, mainly book stores and souvenir shops in addition to home textile shops and offices, constructed basement floors to gain some extra space (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3. Shops have a basement in Koza Han Function Have a Basement No (%) Yes (%) Book store 0,0 100,0 Ceramists 100,0 0,0 Variety Shop 100,0 0,0 Antique Shop 100,0 0,0 Souvenir Shop 50,0 50,0 Home textile 80,0 20,0 Jewellery 100,0 0,0 Office 75,0 25,0 Ready made clothes seller 100,0 0,0 Restaurant 100,0 0,0 Shoe shop 100,0 0,0 Silk manufacturer 100,0 0,0 Silversmiths 100,0 0,0 Storage 100,0 100,0 Tea-coffee house 100,0 0,0
Furthermore, it is detected that some business owners, regardless of their trade function, added mezzanine (Table 5.4) and extended their shops to under the riwaqs (Table 5.5) in order to increase their usage area.
Table 5.4. Shops have a mezzanine in Koza Han Function Have a Mezzanine No (%) Yes (%) Ceramists 0,0 100,0 Variety Shop 0,0 100,0 Antique Shop 0,0 100,0 Souvenir Shop 0,0 100,0 Home textile 40,0 60,0 Jewellery 50,0 50,0 Office 75,0 25,0 Ready made clothes seller 0,0 100,0 Restaurant 70,0 30,0 Shoe Store 50,0 50,0 Silk manufacturer 49,1 50,9 Silversmiths 50,0 50,0 Storage 0,0 100,0 Tea-coffee house 100,0 0,0
109
Table 5.5. Shops covered riwaq in Koza Han Function Covered Riwaq No (%) Yes (%) Book store 0,0 100,0 Ceramists 0,0 100,0 Variety Shop 100,0 0,0 Antique Shop 0,0 100,0 Souvenir Shop 0,0 100,0 Home textile 20,0 80,0 Jewellery 0,0 100,0 Office 25,0 75,0 Ready made clothes seller 50,0 50,0 Restaurant 80,0 20,0 Shoe Store 0,0 100,0 Silk manufacturer 87, 12,3 Silversmiths 50,0 50,0 Storge 100,0 0,0 Tea-coffee house 66,7 33,3
According to survey result, usage types entailed by shop owners in the han are souvenir shops and retail shops for domestic and foreign tourists. Other than these, cultural activity usages, silk trading and tea-coffee houses are other functions demanded in the han. When ideas of business owners in Koza Han regarding the future of the han were asked, in general they replied that the future of the inn will be better. Some of the silk merchants and home-textile shop owners think that the situation of the han will get worse if the physical conditions are not improved.
5.2.2. Emir Han
This han was constructed by Orhan Gazi in the second quarter of 14th Century (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 334; Ergenç 2010, 50; Kepeci 1935, 3). It is situated at the northeast part of Ulucami. Although this han is known as Emir Han, in records it is also considered as Bey Han (Gabriel 1958, 182), Han-ı Bezzaziye and Eski Bedesten88 (Ergenç, 2010, 50). This is the oldest han in Bursa. Emir Han the first example of Ottoman hans was
88 The first bedesten of Bursa was Emir Han. Following this, when Yildirim Bayezid constructed another bedesten, Emir Han started to be called as Old Bedesten
110
constructed considering all conditions of urban commercial activities. In the period it was constructed, there were 36 storehouses without any window below, 38 rooms with windows and ovens above89. These rooms were used as residence. At the back side of the han there used to be a small barn (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 334).
This han was rehabilitated in some periods and kept originally until today. In 1583, Emir Han was burned together with surrounding bazaars (Ergenç 2010, 51; Kepeci 1935, 4 cited sicil no:140; sayfa: 35). With the earthquake of 1674 left part of the han was demolished (Kepeci 1935, 3 cited sicil no:316; sayfa: 128). In 15th Century, barn at the south of the han was demolished within the period when second minaret of Ulucami was constructed (Gabriel 1958, 182). This structure faced with many fires and earthquakes. Moreover, the han lost its originality in time with repairs and additions in interior parts. It was rehabilitated after the fire in 1782. In that period there were 35 rooms in the top floor and 35 storages in the ground floor (kepeci 1935, 4 cited sicil no:1202; sayfa:77). After the earthquake in 1956, it was rehabilitated again in line with its original design (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 334). According to records, it was seen that craftsmen working on shepherd’s felt cloak visiting Bursa were obliged to settle in this han (Kepeci 1935, 3 cited sicil no:48, sayfa: 84). All kind of stuffs eatable or noneatable were weighted in this han (Kepeci 1935, 3). Until 1784, all controllers responsible for weighting all kind of food and other products had settled in this han (Gabriel 1958, 182). Along the west corridor of Emir Han, there was a bazaar where second-hand books were sold. This han constructed for silk trade served for cloth trade as the first bedesten (covered bazaar) of the city (Yenen 2010, 188). After Kapalicarsi fire in 1958, some additions were made near Ulucami and a door was constructed for entrance from Ulucami to toilets. Moreover, this han was rehabilitated in 1544, 1634, 1674, 1788, 1962-1963 (wikipedia. org). Emir Han was a centre for spice stores in 1670, for food sellers in 1765 and for textile and fabric shops since 196490.
When ownership structure of Emir Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are private, state and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.6).
89 As Kepeci states at the upper floor there were 35 rooms, and at the ground floor there were 35 storages, in some other sources (Kepeci 1935, 4), it was claimed that there were 74 rooms (Ergenç 2010, 51; Yavaş 2008, 55).
90 Taken from the sign in the entrance of Emir Han, including information on the han.
111
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF EMİR HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
State
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.6. Ownership Pattern of Emir Han
Today, there are jewellery producers, repairers and wholesalers in the han (Figure 5.7). Accordingly, functions of the ground floor shops of Emir Han and their impacts on the authentic features of the buildings are as follows (Table 5.6):
▪ Jewellery: there are 5 jewellery shops in the first floor of the han. All of these stores opened gates on the main walls of the han to use the spaces behind the walls and covered riwaq. Furthermore, 5 units in the right lower right of han are connected to each other through gates opened in the main walls.
▪ Jewellery repairers: 2 of the 3 jewellery repair shops did not do any interventions to the building, while 1 opened a hole on the main wall to include the space behind the wall to the usage area and covered riwaq.
▪ Jewellery wholesaler: all of the 5 jewellery wholesalers opened entrances on the main walls to include the space behind the wall to the usage area and covered riwaq.
▪ Offices: there are 4 offices in the han. These units opened entrances on the main wall to include the space behind the wall to the store and covered riwaq.
▪ Restaurant: the restaurant in the han covered riwaq anr remove the main wall.
112
▪ Silversmith: the silversmith in the han opened an entrance on the main wall and included the space behind the wall to the store and covered riwaq.
Ground Floor
EMİR HAN LAND USE
Hac Materials Selling
Wedding Dress Seller
Jewellery
Jewellery Repair
Jewellery Wholeseller
Jewellery Maker
Jewellery Office
Bookstore (Religious Book)
Office
Storage
Upper Floor
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
Kitchen
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.7. Emir Han Land Use in 2010
113
Table 5.6. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Emir Han
Jewellery
Jewellery Repair
Jewellery Wholesaler
Silversmiths
Wedding Dress Seller
Office
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF EMİR HAN
1
2
Impact on open space
3
4
+
Intense use of courtyard
5 +
6 +
Impact on both closed and semi-open space
7
8
9
Covered Riwaq and removing the main wall
10
11
+
Function of Shop
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
▪ Wedding dress seller: the wedding dress seller in the han opened an entrance on the main wall and included the space behind the wall to the store.
▪ Storage: one of the 2 storage places in the han did not do any interventions to the structure, while the other one opened an entrance on the main wall to include the space behind the wall
▪ Tea-coffee house: The tea house in the han did not do any interventions to the building but
Today, upper floor is mostly used for selling of hajj equipment and religious books (Figure 5.7). Functions of the upper floor stores in Emir Han and their impacts on the authentic features of the building are as follows (Table 5.7):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
114
Table 5.7. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Emir Han
Hac Materials Selling
Book store (Religious)
Jewellery
Jewellery Wholesaler
Jewellery Office
Jewellery Maker
Storage
Kitchen
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF EMİR HAN
1 +
2 +
Impact on closed space
3 +
4 +
Removing the main wall
5 +
6 +
+ Function of Shop
7 +
8 +
9 +
10
11 +
12 +
13 +
14 +
15 +
16 +
17
18 +
19 +
20 +
21 +
22 +
23 +
24 +
25
26 +
27 +
28 +
29 +
30 +
31 +
32 +
33 +
34 +
▪ Hac materials sale: there are 8 shops selling hac materials in the upper floor of the han did not do any interventions to the building.
▪ Jewellery: there are 8 jewellry shops in the han. One of them one of them removed the main wall to connect to the next store.
▪ Jewellery maker: The only jewellery maker of the han did not do any interventions to the building.
▪ Jewellery office: The are 4 jewellery offices of the han did not do any interventions to the building.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
5
30
1
2
3
4
34
33
31
32
115
▪ Jewellery wholesaler: there are 2 jewellery wholesalers in the han. One of them removed the main wall to connect to the next store.
▪ Book stores: there are two bookstores in the han. One of them removed the main wall to connect to the next store.
▪ Kitchen: there is one kitchen in the han did not have any impact on the building.
▪ Storage: there are 8 storage in the han, did not have any impact on the building.
It is observed that some of usages, mainly jewellery, jewellery wholesaler and offices remove the mail wall to gain some extra space (Table 5.8).
Table 5.8. Shops removing the main wall in Emir Han Function Removing the main wall No (%) Yes (%) Bookseller(religious book) 50,0 50,0 Hac equipment seller 100,0 0,0 Jewellery 53,8 46,2 Jewellery maker 100,0 0,0 Jewellery office 100,0 0,0 Jewellery repair 66,7 33,3 Jewellery wholeseller 28,6 71,4 Kitchen 100,0 0,0 Office 0,0 100,0 Restaurant 0,0 100,0 Silversmiths 0,0 100,0 Storage 90,0 10,0 Tea-coffee house 100,0 00,0 Wedding dress seller 0,0 100,0
According to the survey result, usage types entailed by shop owners in the han are souvenir shops and retail shops for domestic and foreign tourists. Other than these, bookstores want mainly second-hand bookseller to be located in the han, while jewellery wholesalers and jewellery repairers want jewellery shops to be located in the han. On the other hand, the shop owners do not want mainly manufacturing shops and repair shops in addition to street vendors and warehouse usages. Furthermore, other usages thought not to be suitable by business owners are sale of hac materials, ready made clothing shops and tea-coffee houses.
116
5.2.3. Eski İpek Han
It was constructed by Celebi Sultan Mehmet in the second period of 15th Century so as to raise income for Yesil Social Complex (Kulliye) (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 333; Kepeci 1935, 4; Cezar 1985; Ergenç 2010, 51). According to records, it was also named as Sultan Han (Ergenç 2010, 51, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 333; Kepeci 1935, 4), Han-ı Harir (Ergenç 2010, 51; Ayverdi 1989-II, 119) and Paytoncular Han (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 333). In some sources, it was stated that this han used to have 80 rooms (Ergenç 2010, 51), in others, in ground and upper floors there used to be firstly 76 then 78 rooms and a barn (Ayverdi 1989-II, 122). On the other hand, according to some records, there used to be 39 rooms in ground floors and 42 rooms in upper floors (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 333).
This han was not only used for buying and selling. As seen in records, it was also the place of accommodation for traders (Bursa Şer’iye Sicilleri, 343, 68; Kepeci 1935, 5). As Kepeci states, in that period there used to be car and automobile repairmen situated in that han and therefore it was called as Arabacilar Han (Figure 5.8) (Kepeci 1935, 4). In shops situated at the both sides of the han, there used to be maker of silk threads working on silk trade and twisting. For this reason, the place where this han was located was called as Buyuk Kazzazhane (Ergenç 2010, 51; Dalsar 1960, 256). This was one of the biggest hans of the city rehabilitated in 1557, 1632, 1742, 1775 and the ground parts of the han are still keeping its originality (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 333). Entrance part of the han was completely removed while constructing Mecidiye road from Maksem to Sehrekustu and this part was restructured after the fire in 1958 (Kaplanoğlu 2003).
When ownership structure of Eski İpek Han is examined, it is seen that there are two types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. The others are foundation ownerships (Figure 5.9).
117
Figüre 5.8. Automobile repairmen situated in the Eski İpek Han at the beginnings of 1930s (Mortan ve Küçükerman 2010, 137)
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF
ESKİ İPEK HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.9. Ownership Pattern of Eski İpek Han
Today, mainly home textile shops and curtain sellers are located on the ground floor of the han (Figure 5.10). Accordingly, functions of the ground floor shops of eski ipek Han and their impacts on the authentic features of the buildings are as follows (Table 5.9):
118
Ground Floor
ESKİ İPEK HAN LAND USE
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Household Textile
Curtain Shop
Cloth Mercant
Cosmetic
Cutler & Knife Grinder
Shoe Shop
Wedding Dress Seller
Tailor
Storage
Upper Floor
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.10. Eski İpek Han Land Use in 2010
119
Table 5.9. Impacts of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Eski İpek Han
Home Textile
Ready-made Clothing
Curtain Shop
Cloth Merchant
Tea-coffee House
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF ESKİ İPEK HAN
1
Impact on open space
2
Intense use of courtyard
3
Impact on semi-open space
4
Covered riwaq
5
Impact on closed space
6
Have a Mezzanine
7
8
Have a mezzanine and Basement
9
10
Removing the main wall
11
Impact on semi-open and closed space
12
Covered riwaq and Have a mezzanine
13 +
14 +
Covered riwaq and removing the main wall
15 +
16
Covered riwaq, have a mezzanine and basement and removing the main wall
17
18
+
Function of shop
19
20 +
21 +
22
23 +
24
25 +
26
27
28 +
29
30
31
32
33
34
▪ Ready made seller: 1 of the 7 ready made seller shops has a mezzanine, 1 of the rest 6 covered riwaq, and one shop covered riwaq and have a mezzanine. One shop covered riwaq, have a mezzanine and remove the main wall. The other tree shop did not have any intervention.
▪ Home textile: 5 of the home textile shops in the han covered riwaq. One of the rest have both mezzanine and basement. 3 shop covered riwaq and have a mezzanine. Two shop have mezzanine.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
26
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
120
▪ Curtain shop: 2 of the shops in the han covered riwaq. 2 of the others have a mezzanine. One shop has both mezzanine and basement. One of the them covered riwaq and remove the main wall. One of them remove the main wall and one of the rest covered riwaq and has a mezzanine.
▪ Cloth merchant: one cloth merchant in the han covered riwaq and added a mezzanine to their shops.
On the upper floor, units are mainly used for storage purposes while there are also silk merchants, ready made seller shops, home-textile shops, cosmetics, bridal shops, tea-coffee houses and restaurants (Figure 5.10). Functions of the shops in the upper floor of eski ipek Han and their impacts on the authentic features of the buildings are as follows (Table 5.10):
▪ Silk manufacturer: 1 silk merchant located on the upper floor of the han added a mezzanine to the shop.
▪ Jewellery repair: 1 jewellery repair shop in the han did not have any intervention to the shop.
▪ Ready made clothes seller: 1 ready made clothes seller located in the han added a mezzanine to the shop.
▪ Home textile: 2 of 6 home textile shops in the hans connected to the adjacent shop by removing the main wall 1 of the rest had a mezzanine and 3 did not have any intervention on the building.
▪ Wedding Dress Seller: 2 wedding dress seller located in the han did not have any intervention on the building.
▪ Cosmetics: 2 of the cosmetics shop added mezzanines to their shops while other 3 didnt have any intervention.
▪ Tea-coffee house: 1 tea-coffee house in the in removed the main wall.
▪ Restaurant: 1 of the 2 restaurants in the han had a mezzanine, while the other one did not have any intervention.
▪ Office: 1 office located in the han did not have any intervention on the structure.
▪ Storage: 4 of these usages added mezzanines, while other 14 of them did not have any intervention on the building.
121
Table 5.10. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Eski İpek Han
Jewellery Repair Shop
Silk Manufacturer
Home Textile
Ready-made Clothing
Wedding Dress Seller
Cosmetics
Office
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF ESKİ İPEK HAN
1
2 +
Impact on closed space
3
4 +
Have a Mezzanine
5 +
6 +
Removing the main wall
7 +
8
+
Function of shop
9 +
10 +
11 +
12 +
13 +
14 +
15 +
16 +
17 +
18 +
19
20 +
21 +
22 +
23 +
24 +
25 +
26 +
27 +
28
29 +
30 +
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 +
Some of the commercial functions such as tea-coffee houses, curtain sellers and home-textile shops removed the main walls of the han to connect to the adjacent units in order to gain some extra area (Table 5.11).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
122
Table 5.11. Shops removing the main wall in Eski İpek Han Function Removing the main wall No (%) Yes (%) Cozmetic 100,0 00,0 Home Textile 88,9 11,1 Jewellery Repair 100,0 0,0 Cloth Merchant 100,0 0,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Curtain Shop 73,4 16,6 Ready Made Clothes Seller 88,9 11,1 Restaurant 100,0 0,0 Silk Manufacturer 100,0 0,0 Storage 100,0 0,0 Tea-Cofee House 0,0 100,0 Wedding Dress Seller 100,0 0,0
Moreover, it is detected that some business, regardless of their trade function, such as silk merchants and mercers, added mezzanines to the shops (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12. Shops have a mezzanine in Eski İpek Han Function Have a mezzanine No (%) Yes (%) Cozmetic 60,0 40,0 Home Textile 68,5 31,5 Jewellery Repair 100,0 0,0 Cloth Mercant 0,0 100,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Curtain Shop 75,0 25,0 Ready Made Clothes Seller 66,7 33,3 Restaurant 50,0 50,0 Silk Manufacturer 0,0 100,0 Storage 77,8 22,2 Tea-Cofee House 100,0 0,0 Wedding Dress Seller 100,0 0,0
In addition, some ready made clothes seller shops constructed basement floors in order to store their excess products (Table 5.13).
123
Table 5.13. Shops have a basement in Eski İpek Han Function Have a basement No (%) Yes (%) Cozmetic 100,0 0,0 Home Textile 94,5 5,5 Jewellery Repair 100,0 0,0 Cloth Mercant 100,0 0,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Curtain Shop 91,7 8,3 Ready Made Clothes Seller 88,9 11,1 Restaurant 100,0 0,0 Silk Manufacturer 100,0 0,0 Storage 100,0 0,0 Tea-Cofee House 100,0 0,0 Wedding Dress Seller 100,0 0,0
According to the survey result, usage types entailed by shop owners in the han are souvenir shops and retail shops for domestic and foreign tourists. Other than these, cultural activity usages, silk trading and tea-coffee houses are other functions demanded in the han. On the other hand, the shop owners do not want manufacturing shops and repair shops in addition to street vendors and warehouse usages. Furthermore, other usages thought not to be suitable by business owners are offices and restaurants.
As a result of the survey, when ideas of business owners in İpek Han regarding the future of the han were asked, some of the shop owners replied that the future of the han will be better, while some mercers and textile shop owners mentioned that the situation will get worse. In addition to this, some business owners think that there will be no difference.
5.2.4. Fidan (Mahmut Paşa) Han
In the period of Fatih Sultan Mehmet, it was constructed for the purpose of creating fund for the mosque and imaret in Istanbul in the 15th Century (Gabriel 1958, 184). It is one of the largest hans of Uzuncarsi. At the east part of the han, there are storages built before the han, places for car parking and another yard where barns were located (Gabriel 1958, 183; Kepeci 1935, 14). At the gound floor 4810 and at the upper floor 50 rooms were
124
located (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338; Kepeci 1935, 14). Today, this han known as Fidan Han was the place where silk traders had accommodated (Ergenç 2010, 54).
As Ramis Dara states this han is called as Fidan Han as sapling are being sold in it (Dara 2000, 41). There is interesting information about this han in the record of 1671 such as; some implementations damaging the han were reported after the applications to Bursa Court done in that period. These implementations were defined as additions made in front of rooms by owners of some shops and blocking windows of some rooms of the han. After investigating, the court decided to remove these additions made (Oğuzoğlu 2010, 75; Kepeci 1935, 15 cited sicil no:295; sayfa:73). Through another investigation, it was specified that one of the craftsmen have an unregistered shop for painting built in the yard where barn was located and damaged two columns of the barn so as to move an oven to the upper floor. Similarly, the court decided that this craftsman should repair these columns and demolish the shop built later (Oğuzoğlu 2010, 75; Kepeci 1935, 15 aktarılan sicil no: 295; sayfa: 85). This han was fired in 1491 but rehabilitated later (Kepeci 1935, 14). Some parts of the han were rehabilitated in 1561, 1603, 1656 and 1760 (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338). Rooms of Fidan han surrounds an haner courtyard with riwaqs. A basement is constructed under the southern arm of the han due to topographical slope. There are a number of shops around the han, in the entrance and in the northern façade (Kuban 2007, 225).
When ownership structure of Fidan Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are private, Osmangazi Municipalty and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.11).
Today, the ground floor of the han is used by various artisan groups dominated by bridal shops and restaurants (Figure 5.12). Functions of the shops on the ground floor and their impacts on the authentic features of the building are as follows (Table 5.14):
▪ Jewellery: 1 jewellery shop located in the han covered riwaq.
▪ Jewellery repair: 4 jewellery repairers located in the han covered riwaq
125
▪ Ready made clothes seller: 1 ready made clothes seller shop located in the han covered riwaq
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF FİDAN HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
Osmangazi Municipality
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.11. Ownership Pattern of Fidan Han
▪ Home textiles: 1 out of the 12 home textile shops located in the han has a mezzanine, while 9 of the rest covered riwaq and 3 did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Wedding dress seller: 3 wedding dress seller located in the han did not have any interventions on the building, while 4 covered riwaq.
▪ Tea-coffee house: 4 tea-coffee houses located in the han covered riwaq.
▪ Restaurant: 2 out of the 11 restaurants located in the han remove the main wall and all of the restaurants covered riwaq.
On the upper floor, there are different usages, such as mainly offices and warehouses in addition to ready made clothes seller shops, tailors, home-textile shops; bridal shops (Figure 5.12). Functions of the shops on the ground floor and their impacts on the authentic features of the building are as follows (Table 5.15):
126
Ground Floor
FİDAN HAN LAND USE
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Wedding Dress Seller
Household Textiles
Sarraf
Jewellery
Jewellery Repair Shop
Jewellery Wholeseller
Tailor
Office
Storage
Upper Floor
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.12. Fidan Han Land Use in 2010
W.C.
127
Table 5.14. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the ground floor of Fidan Han
Jewellery
Jewellery Repair
Wedding Dress Seller
Ready-made Clothing
Home Textile
sarraf
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF FİDAN HAN
1
2 +
Impact on open space
3
4
Intense use of courtyard
5
6
Impact on semi-open space
7
8
Covered Riwaq
9
10
Impact on closed space
11
12
Have a Mezzanine
13
14
Impact on both closed and semi-open space
15 +
16 +
Covered Riwaq and have a Mezzanine
17 +
18
Covered Riwaq and Removing the Main Wall
19
20
+
Function of shop
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 +
29 +
30 +
31 +
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 +
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
39
39
39
7
7
7
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
128
Table 5.15. Impact of functions on the authentic characteristics of the building in the upper floor of Fidan Han
Jewellery
Jewellery Repair
Jewellery Wholesaler
Ready-made Clothing
Wedding Dress Seller
Home Textile
Tailor
Office
Storage
IMPACT OF FUNCTIONS ON THE AUTHENTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF FİDAN HAN
1 +
2 +
Impact on closed space
3
4
Have a Mezzanine
5 +
6 +
Removing the main wall
7 +
8 +
+
Function of shop
9 +
10 +
11 +
12
13 +
14 +
15 +
16 +
17 +
18 +
19 +
20 +
21 +
22 +
23 +
24 +
25 +
26 +
27 +
28 +
29 +
30 +
31 +
32 +
33 +
34 +
35 +
36 +
37 +
38 +
39 +
40 +
41 +
42 +
43 +
44 +
45 +
46 +
47 +
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
41
42
43
6
7
47
46
45
44
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
9
129
▪ Jewellery: 2 jewellery shops located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Jewellery repair: 1 jewellery repairer located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Jewelley wholesale: 2 jewellery wholesale shops located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Ready made clothes seller: 2 out of 4 ready made clothes seller shops located in the han removed the main wall.
▪ Home textile: 2 home textile shops in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Wedding dress seller: 1 wedding dress seller located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Tailor: 3 tailor shops located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Office: 13 offices located in the han did not have any interventions on the building.
▪ Storage: 1 of these usages located in the han had a mezzanine, while the rest 18 did not have any interventions on the building.
As a result, in the existing use of the han, it is detected that some users extended their shops under the riwaqs to increase their usage areas (Table 5.16).
Table 5.16. Shops covered riwaq in Fidan Han Function Covered riwaq No (%) Yes (%) Sarraf 0 100,0 Home Textile 35,7 64,3 Jewellery 66,7 33,3 Jewellery Repair 20,0 80,0 Jewellery Wholeseller 100,0 0,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Ready Made Clothes Seller 80,0 20,0 Restaurant 45,6 54,4 Storage 100,0 0,0 Tailor 100,0 0,0 Tea-Coffee House 0 100,0 Wedding Dress Seller 50,0 50,0
130
Moreover, some users added mezzanines with the same purpose (Table 5.17), while some others removed the main wall to connect to the adjacent units (Table 5.18). Additionally, on 07/09/2009, an explosion occurred in the basement of the jewelry manufacturing workshop located in the han91. In this type manufacturing, acid and other chemical substances as well as industrial tubes are used. The han management demands that the jewelry manufacturers be inhibited from pouring acid and other wastes into the rain and sewage drains, and this kind of workshops and manufacturing shops be banned in the han.
Table 5.17. Shops have a mezzanine in Fidan Han Function Have a mezzanine No (%) Yes (%) Sarraf 100,0 0,0 Home Textile 92,9 7,1 Jewellery 100,0 0,0 Jewellery Repair 100,0 0,0 Jewellery Wholeseller 100,0 0,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Ready Made Clothes Seller 100,0 0,0 Restaurant 100,0 0,0 Storage 94,8 5,2 Tailor 100,0 0,0 Tea-Coffee House 100,0 0,0 Wedding Dress Seller 100,0 0,0
Table 5.18. Shops removing the main wall in Fidan Han Function Removing the main wall No (%) Yes (%) Different trades 100,0 0,0 Home textile 100,0 0,0 Jewellery 100,0 0,0 Jewellery repair 100,0 0,0 Jewellery wholeseller 100,0 0,0 Office 100,0 0,0 Ready made clothes seller 60,0 40,0 Restaurant 81,8 18,2 Storage 100,0 0,0 Tailor 100,0 0,0 Tea-coffee house 100,0 0,0 Wedding dress seller 100,0 0,0
91 See “http://www.olay.com.tr/haber/guncel/tarihi-handa-patlayan-tup-korkuttu-23768.html” for more information about explosion
131
According to the survey result, business owners want certain usages to be located in the han, such as souvenir shops devoted to domestic and foreigner tourists, home-textile product shops and wholesale shops. Other than these, ready-made clothing and restaurants are other functions demanded in the han. The shop owners do not want jewellery repair shops, offices and warehouses to be located in the han. Other usages thought not to be appropriate for the structure of the han are ready-made clothing and shoe sellers in addition to tea-coffee houses and restaurants.
When business owners in Fidan Han were asked about their thoughts on the future of the historical bazaar, the ones in jewellery sector replied that it will get better, while some garment and textile shop owners declared that it will get worse. Moreover, some business owners think that there will be no change.
5.2.5. Geyve Han
In 15th Century, it was constructed by Haci Ivaz Pasa so as to raise income for Yesil Social Complex (Kulliye). Considering records, it was also named as El-Hacc Ivaz Han and Lonca Han (Ayverdi 1989-II, 119 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338; Bursa Şer’iye Sicilleri, A127, 46). Later, it was called as Geyve Han (Ergenç 2010, 52). It was located at the west part of Bedesten (closed bazaar) and at the right of entrance of Demirkapi from Uzuncarsi (Ayverdi 1989-II, 119; Kepeci 1935, 12; Ergenç 2006, 32). There used to be 54 rooms when constructed firstly. It was rehabilitated in 1647 and 1743 (Gabriel 1958, 183). After these rehabilitations, there used to be 30 rooms at the upstairs and 26 rooms at the ground floor (Ayverdi 1989-II, 119; Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338). It was also renewed in 1647, 1669, 1742, and 1775 (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 339).
When ownership structure of Geyve Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are private, Osmangazi Municipalty and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.13).
132
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF GEYVE HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
Osmangazi Municipality
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.13. Ownership Pattern of Geyve Han
Jewellery repairers were located in Geyve Han between 2007 and 2009. The han was used as textile central bureau until 1975. After this year, it was mainly used for storage purposes. After 2009, upper floors turned into wholesale units92. Restoration works of the Geyve Han was started in 2006 and finished in 2007 by Osmangazi Municipality. Northern gate, which was closed during 1855 earthquake, was opened during the restoration. Moreover, eaves and irregularly located signs of the ground floor shops were removed (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14. Geyve Han before restoration (Dinçel 2009, 77)
92 (interview with the chair of the han).
133
Today, ground floor of the han is used by dowery shops, quilt shops, towel shops, silk merchants and jewellery repairers. Upper floor is mainly used by jewellery shops and insurance companies (Figure 5.15)
Ground Floor
GEYVE HAN LAND USE
Silk Manufacturer
Towel Seller
Dowery Seller
Sarraf
Jewellery Repair
Jewellery Wholeseller
Silversmiths
Tailor
Office
Storage
Upper Floor
Tea-coffee House
Restaurant
Enterence
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.15. Geyve Han Land Use in 2010
Small Mosque
mosque
134
During the researches done in Bursa Regional Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage archive, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality archive and Ormangazi Municipality archive, plans showing authentic physical structure of Geyve Han were not found. For this reason, impacts of the functions on the physical elements of the building could not be analyzed. However, it is detected that revakes are covered on the ground floor (Figure 5.16).
Figure 5.16. Geyve Han after restoration (http://geyvemedya.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2789468-geyve-han.jpg, last accessed, 22.01.2010)
5.2.6. Tuz Han
It was constructed in the 15th Century (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 338). Along the Uzuncarsi Axis, it was situated on Tuz Pazarı Street and in front of Kutahya Han (east part of Koza Han). It was rehabilitated in the 16th and 17th Centuries considerably but again demolished with the earthquake in 1855 (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 343). While Kepeci stated that there used to be 18 rooms at the upper floor and 17 storages at the ground floor (Kepeci 1935, 20), Ayverdi states that there used to be 26 rooms at the ground
135
floor and some additions93 were constructed for rooms (Ayverdi 1989-II, 356). It was stated
that Tonak Han was used mostly by meatball restaurants (Tonak 2003, 64). Tuz Han was
used as a warehouse before its restoration by Ormangazi Municipality94 (Figure 5.17).
Figure 5.17. Tuz Han before restoration (www.Osmangazi-bld.gov.tr).
When ownership structure of Tuz Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of
ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are
private, Osmangazi Municipalty and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.18).
During the researches done in Bursa Regional Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage
archive, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality archive and Ormangazi Municipality archive, plans
showing authentic physical structure of Tuz Han were not found. For this reason, impacts of
the functions on the physical elements of the building could not be analyzed. However, it is
detected that riwaqs are covered on the ground floor (Figure 5.19). Today, there are
various textile trade usages in the han (Figure 5.20).
93 While making additions to rooms, revak was closed and entrance from one side of the han was closed
(Ayverdi 1989, 356).
94 Interview with president of the Han foundation
136
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF TUZ HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
Osmangazi Municipality
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.18. Ownership Pattern of Tuz Han
Figure 5.19. Tuz Han (http://www.bursa.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/607-_HDR2-Large.jpg, last accessed, 30.01.2011)
137
Ground Floor
TUZ HAN LAND USE
Ready-made Clothes Seller
Wedding Dress Seller
Dowery Seller
Calligrapher
Cologne Seller
Cutler & Knife Grinder
Shoe Shop
Tailor
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Upper Floor
Restaurant
Enterence
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.20. Tuz Han Land Use in 2010
138
5.2.7. Pirinç Han
It was constructed by Beyazid II in 1507 (Kepeci 1935, 10; Ergenç 2010, 54). It is situated at the northwest of Ipek Han. It is called as Pirinc Han as especially rice was being sold there. There are 38 rooms at the ground floor and 40 rooms at the upper floor (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340; Kepeci 1935, 12). Two harness makers situated in front of the han was fired in 1519, but rehabilitated later (Kepeci 1935, 11 aktarılan sicil no: 28; sayfa: 6; Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü 1983, 340). Fur trade gained importance in Pirinç Han for some time. As one of highly visited hans by foreigner traders, it started to attract silk spinners in time, and it became a place dominated by silk related works (Cezar 1985, 98; Ergenç 2010, 54).
Gabriel discussed that the han did not demolished too much with the fire in 1958 and ground floors can be used for storing or shops (Tamer 1974, 9). The biggest damage was seen with the earthquake in 1855 (Baykal 1948, 93). Following this, some additions were constructed so as to close these damaged parts while restoring the han. In time these additions were enlarged (Binan 1999, 289). Northeast part was demolished for construction of Cumhuriyet Road between 1902 and 1904 (Baykal 1950, 25). It is also seen that in constructions done before 1983, this han was so damaged and additions were made in the yard and above the demolished parts (Binan 1999, 289).
Casters were located in the han in 1950. They gave harm to the structure of the han. After 1970s, the han started to become a meeting point for people who come from surrounding villages for shopping. In that period, small businesses such as tea and pita sellers were located in the han to serve the villagers (Demirağ 1989; 60). In the 1990s, the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement was responsible for the reparation of Pirinç Han. The building was damaged due to the presence of harmful businesses such as bakery shops and mostly casting workshops (Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets Archieve).
139
When ownership structure of Pirinç Han is examined, it is seen that there are three types of ownership structures, most of which are under control of private ownership. These are private, state and foundation ownerships (Figure 5.21).
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF PİRİNÇ HAN
Cadastral Boundaries
State
Private
Foundation
Based on cadastral map in 2009
Bursa Metropoliten Municipality archives
Figure 5.21. Ownership Pattern of Pirinç Han
Today, there are restaurants, cafes at the ground floor and bookstores and storages are located at the upper floors (Figure 5.22). During the researches done in Bursa Regional Council of Cultural and Natural Heritage archive, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality archive and Ormangazi Municipality archive, plans showing authentic physical structure of Pirinç Han were not found. For this reason, impacts of the functions on the physical elements of the building could not be analyzed. During the on-site examination, it is detected that tables, chairs and shades of the restaurants and tea gardens located on the ground floor of the inn block the usage areas and decrease the perceptibility of the han. Furthermore, in the research carried out in Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archive, it is found out that in the shop located in plot 15, a mezzanine floor was
140
constructed, a sign was placed in a way causing visual pollution on the facade of the han
and a metal flue pipe was extended95 (Figure 5.23).
Ground Floor
PİRİNÇ HAN LAND USE
Leather Manufacturer
Bag Seller
Home Textile
Art Studio
Photpgrapher Shop
Tattoo Shop
Optician
Office
Storage
Tea-coffee House
Upper Floor
Restaurant
Unused (Ruined)
NORTH
Prepared by:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK
Figure 5.22. Pirinç Han Land Use in 2010
95 See Appendix xx for Bursa KTVK Council decision.
141
Figure 5.23. Restaurant in Pirinç Han (Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets Archieve)
In the new usage-refunctioning and environmental integration report for Bursa Pirinç Han prepared by Restoration Branch of the Department of Architecture in Yıldız Technical University in 2004, it is mentioned that:
“…regarding the new function or functions, it is required to make selections not harming the historical identity and physical presence. The new function should answer the needs of the community. .. Workplace, office, shop, environment friendly mill, exhibition halls in large venues (former stables), restaurant (with the condition that services and infrastructure will not give harm), and similar functions can be allowed. On the other hand, former functions can exist under control, while existing foundry, repair shop, bakery, carpentry workshop, lathe router workshop giving harm to the building should definitely not stay...” (The new usage-refunctioning and environmental integration report for Bursa Pirinç Han in Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets Archieve ).
142
5.3. Evaluation of the Impact of Functional Changes on the Authentic Characteristics of Historical Buildings
The historic commercial centre of Bursa has been used as a commercial space since it was built. The functional relationships between craftsmen related to traditional production and trade had remained unchanged until the 19th century. After the 19th century, this structure has started to change due to both urban development and disasters that took place within the process of development. The Republican era, especially after the 1960s, with the industrial development gaining weight, different types of use emerged in line with the demands and needs of various consumer groups in the historic city centre, which is still the city’s commercial centre. In the period of planned development, a holistic conservation policy for the city centre could not be made. The conservation practices that took place in the city aimed at “rehabilitating historic buildings and increasing their perceptibility, removing the annexes and surrounding buildings that are not of historic value and arranging the new spaces thus obtained in a way that they meet the needs of urban life”. The historic buildings in the city centre were restored by the concerned municipality and they were rendered perceptible with landscaping. However, this process approached one by one the structures that constituted the hans rather than holistically and thus could not achieve functions that are compatible to the authentic characteristics of the buildings and their control. Depending on the conditions of the period, various commercial activities took place in the hans. For example, the upper floor of Koza Han was used as law offices when the courthouse was in the city centre. After the courthouse was relocated and lawyers moving away from the area, other types of use within the market mechanism took place. The han where silk cocoon used to be traded now hosts some workplaces active in sericulture. Similarly, it was identified that jewellery-related activities are concentrated in Emir Han due to its proximity to the Closed Bazaar.
Some of the traditional production and trade activities have varied through the adaptation to the changing socio-economic structure. The form, size and type of commercial goods today are different that those of the past. A shop compatible for the merchant of the past is not enough for the contemporary use. As a result, the authentic characteristics of the hans, which have a significant role in the identity of the city of Bursa, were affected adversely by
143
the functions that are incompatible to the historical building. The historic commercial buildings in the area lost some of their authentic characteristics due to incompatible functions. The archival research on the buildings of the han and observations demonstrate that the new shop windows, big signs and unkempt colors that disregard the order of the façades of the shops in the han have adverse effects on the historic values both on a single-building scale and the area as a whole. It is observed that in most of the units the new use had affected negatively the unity of the building, the doors and windows are enlarged and additional floors are added to the buildings.
The analyses conducted for each unit to determine the relationship between the function and the way of interfering showed that the effects of the users and uses on the buildings are as follows:
 The unconscious intervention of the users on the building to gain space
It was seen that the uses in this group were mainly uses requiring storages such as home textile and shoe stores and broad window shops such as the jewellery shops. The most common form of intervention by these types of uses is closing the riwaqs located on the ground floor. Other forms of intervention are removing the main walls of the han to connect spaces with each other, and building mezzanines and basement floors for the shops (Figure 5.24- Figure 5.25).
144
Figure 5.24. Jewellery shop removing the main wall in the ground floor of Emir Han (Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets Archieve)
Figure 5.25. Shops having a mezzanine in Koza Han (http://www.kozahan.org/altkat/asuteks/index.html, last accessed, 21.03.2011)
145
 Functions that are structurally incompatible for historic buildings
It was identified that the uses in this group were eating and drinking places with their own kitchen, and jewellery manufacturing shops. Besides, there are furniture shops that decrease the perceptibility of the buildings although they do not adverse effect to the building. In the hans that were not originally places to eat and drink (Uysal 2004, 68) today there are used such as tea and coffee houses and restaurants. Today, a limited number of this type of use can be in the hans in a planned manner, however, the increase in the number of these uses and the consequent tables, chairs and shades block the open space, namely the courtyard of the building and reduce its perceptibility. In particular, the addition of ovens and counters in uses such as restaurants causes damage to the original characteristics of the building (Figure 5.26).
146
147
Figure 5.26. Restaurant in the ground floor of Koza Han (Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets Archieve)
Moreover, although the need of space of jewellery manufacturing shops is compatible for the buildings, they are a threat due their use of industrial bottled gases. In this reason jewellery manufacturing shops are incompatible for the historical buildings (Figure 5.27).
The analyses conducted show that another type of use whose need of space is incompatible for the historic buildings is furniture shops. The İvazpaşa Bazaar that has been related to woodworking and a place for furniture trade since the time it was first established is not perceptible today (Figure 5.28).
Figure 5.27. Jewellery maker in Ground Floor of Koza Han (http://www.kozahan.org/altkat/metistaki/index.html, last accessed, 21.03.2012 )
148
Figure 5.28. Furniture shop in the Sipahi Bazaar (Personal Archieve)
149
Hans are currently used as museums, cultural centres and hotels in addition to commercial uses. A typical Ottoman urban han established in the 16th century for accommodation and trade, Çengel Han in Ankara Historical City Centre is now used as a museum. The historic monument document dating 1972 shows that the han was used as office space, and coffee, leather, mohair and cotton storage (Ankara Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archieve). According to the examination conducted in the han in 1992, most of the spaces on the ground floor were used as storage for sheep skin and tannery (Ankara Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archieve). The proposal of the General Directorate for Foundations for using the han as a museum and a tourist bazaar was found to be appropriate and approved by the Cultural and Natural Heritage Preservation Board in accordance with Decision No 7965 dated 07.6.2002. Then, the use of the han as a museum became definite and a project for adapting the han for this use was prepared96. As the original function of the han was accommodation and the han was structured accordingly, there are no large spaces compatible for exhibition and small portable works were intended to be exhibited. Composed of small, adjacent spaces, the building was organized in sections for exhibition for better circulation. As a result, the closed spaces are used as permanent exhibition space, office, warehouse, toilets and salesroom and the riwaqs as permanent exhibition space and circulation space (Figure 5.29). On the other hand, the Mahmut Paşa Bedesten, established in the 15th century and located in the historic city center of Ankara, was used as a distribution center for mohair fabrics. Between 1938 and 1968, the Bedesten was restored to be used as the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. However, only five shops were kept in their original state and the main walls between the rest of the shops were removed in order to obtain a large exhibition corridor in the building surrounded by an arasta composed of 102 opposite small shops (Ankara Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archieve).
96 Ankara-Ulus Çengel Han Museum, Conservation-Repair and Adaptation Project, August 2003, by KA.BA Conservation of Historic Buildings and Architecture Ltd.
150
Ground floor
Upper floor
Figure 5.29. Çengel Han floor plans (Ankara Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archieve)
Established in accordance with the classical scheme of Ottoman han in the 17th century, Suluhan (Mahmut Paşa Han) used to be the centre for coffee and silk trade in the 18th century. During that period, herbalists were located in and around the han (Tuncer 2001). The decaying Suluhan was used as a small market for vegetables and fruits until the 1950s. In the 1980s, as a result of the restoration works carried out by the General Directorate for Foundations, the han gained its original appearance97. Today, the han mainly hosts uses such as shops selling jewellery and material for jewellery, florists, coppersmiths, electrical equipment shop, and ready-made clothing shops. However, as the closed space of the shops in the han is not sufficient, the goods are displayed in front of the shops, and thus, it prevents the authentic characteristics of the han to be perceived (Figure 5.30).
97 Ankara Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets archieve, http://ankaratarihi.blogspot.com/2009/12/eski-hana-yeni-cehre-suluhan.html
151
Figure 5.30. Suluhan in 2011 (Personal Archieve)
Both the detailed analyses on the types of use present in commercial hans located in the study area and the examination of the forms of use of urban Ottoman hans that are still in use today show that the original design characteristics of these hans, which were designed according to the needs of their era, are damaged if these buildings are not assigned copatible uses. Today, interventions on the authentic design characteristics of these buildings are more common in the commercial hans. Especially the ground floors of the commercial hans are used extensively for they provide strong pedestrian connections. The presence of various functions and lack of control in the shops lead to damage in the
152
authentic characteristics of the historical buildings in the hans that mostly passed to private ownership throughout history. The main reasons for this are the need for larger spaces of contemporary uses and the unconscious approach of the business owners to historic buildings.
153
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
In this study, carried out with the assumption that some functions located in the hans which are in line with the needs and requirements of the modern life style give harm to the historical trade buildings, whose physical conditions and spatial characteristics are designed according to the requirements of the period in which they were built, and impacts of the contemporary functions of the historical commercial buildings on their structure are examined and functions affecting open spaces, semi-open spaces and closed spaces of the hans were tried to be defined. The results of the analysis show that the spatial requirements of some functions are not compatible with the authentic characteristics of the historical buildings and such functions give harm to their authentic characteristics.
As the shops in the hans used in an organized system in the past were rented as independent units for different functions, shop owners could intervene with the building to increase their usage area. The most common intervention in the buildings is closing the riwaqs and removing the main walls to connect the units. In addition, façades of the buildings are distorted for display and advertising purposes, additional floors are added, and basement floors are created by digging the ground. Due to incapacities of the physical conditions, air conditioning equipments are mounted to the façades, stoves are set, and phone, electricity and water systems are installed. It is observed that especially workshop usages caused serious damages in the hans in this process.
Home textile use requiring small spaces but high product load impacts the common space use of the building and causes imperceptibility of the cultural assets (Figure 6.1). Streets occupied by jewellery stores and variety shops in Gaziantep Kemikli covered bazaar, Kahramanmaras Kavaflar and Bezirgan bazaars (Akar 2009, 47).
154
Figure 6.1. Kemikli bedesten in Gaziantep (http://gaziantepzafer.com/?id=2483&habertip=1, last accessed 24,12,2011)
Accordingly, it is determined that tables, chairs and shades in the courtyard of the hans, where tea/coffee houses are in significant numbers, decrease the perceptibility of the hans. Moreover, elements such as window arrangements, signboards and panels lead to imperceptibility of the buildings (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2. Courtyard of Pirinç Han in 2012 (Personal Archieve)
155
Although a detailed analysis was not carried out regarding the hans in Bursa historical trade centre, which is examined within the context of this thesis work, it is observed in the contemporarily-used historical trade buildings examined that functions in the buildings are not compatible with the structures and they decrease their perceptibility.
Some buildings including Kızlarağası Han (Figure 6.3) in İzmir Kemeraltı have been transformed into modern touristic bazaars or office structures with important interventions. Historical buildings have undergone interventions such as the addition of galleries in their inner space or closure of courtyards to have additional space which have damaged their authentic characteristics (Kayın 2002, 3198).
Figure 6.3. Kızlağası Han in İzmir (http://www.izmirkulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-87480/kizlaragasi-hani.html, last accessed 24.12.2011 )
Gifts shops and variety stores are located on the first floor of Bodrum Hacı Molla Han. The courtyard is unperceivable as it is filled with different stalls as if it is a market area (Besim and Akat 2007, 226).
98 http://www.egemimarlik.org/40-41/40-41-8.pdf, last access, 04.01.2012.
156
What should be done for Bursa Historical City Centre?
Han buildings constituting an important part of Bursa Historical City Centre have been used for commercial activities during their long history. In this process, their uses changed, and as a result, some functions damaged their authentic characteristics. Restoration and re-use projects in this kind of buildings should aim at preserving the historical identity of the building and its uniqueness shaped with the characteristics brought about throughout time and at handing them down as much as possible. A conservation and restoration project, in addition to preserving these characteristics of the building, should preserve its original function; if this is not possible, it should ensure that it has a new function which is not in contradiction with the historic identity of the building and which does not have adverse effects on it. The new function must respond to the needs of the environment.
 Spaces covered or connected should be transformed into their original condition; units reflecting characteristics of the structure such as riwaqs, rooms etc. should be revealed.
 The number of functions like restaurants should be limited, given that kitchen arrangements might bring about overload on the structure.
 Intensification of this function should be accepted as a general principle and limited with plan decisions.
The protection of historical buildings with their authentic characteristics and their continuance can be ensured by allocating functions that do not create pressure through constructions in the vicinity or on the physical and spatial facilities, that have high economic returns and that are compatible with the historical environment and in relation with existing activities.
 In order to preserve the authentic design characteristics of the historical trade buildings, personal implementations such as advertising boards and trade names shall be limited and improvement projects shall be mandatory for change.
157
 Hans, which have important role in bazaar culture, can be used by redeveloping the functions they had in the past due to their location and value under present conditions.
Although it is not possible for hans, which hosted small-scale trades such as coppersmiths, cutlers, shoe shops formerly and silk waving and similar manufacturing in the 19th century, to fulfil the demands of contemporary economic life, models promoting commercial functions compatible with the cultural identity of the city, based on traditional handicrafts, in small, personalized commercial settings should be developed. For instance, today manufacturing and sales are done together in Şanlıurfa Bakırcılar Bazaar. Bakırcılar Bazaar is the most vibrant place of Urfa Bazaar (Figure 6.4). Today Zincirli Bedesten in Gaziantep also has a traditional commercial function (Figure 6.5). Commercial functions with large scale space needs should be located outside the hans, in another area in the development plans.
Figure 6.4. Bakırcılar Bazaar of Şanlıurfa (http://tarihikentlerbirligi.org/i/haberler/uaf2.jpg, last accessed 05.03.2012)
158
Figure 6.5. Zincirli bedesten in Gaziantep (http://geziyorumturkiye2.blogspot.com/2011/06/zincirli-bedestengaziantep.html, last accessed, 05.03.2012)
 The hans used for commercial purposes lost their authentic design characteristics in time due to renewals and additions. In order to prevent further deformation of the hans, building survey registers should be prepared, they should be provided with possibilities to be used in line with the requirements of the present time and should be allocated for commercial and social purposes, and these functions should be referred in the development plans or at least be suggested. Functions that are
159
compatible with the surrounding of the historical building and that will not harm the authentic characteristics of the building should be encouraged.  Based on proper data on function analysis, it should be questioned which space will be used for what function; whether the space will be able to fulfil needs in terms of functional and dimensional aspects. Special needs regarding the relations between units in the building, transportation facilities for users and various services, security, flexibility, communication, circulation, car park, etc. should be evaluated.
6.1. Significance of the Study
This thesis aims to present a methodological framework in order to determine which commercial functions brought by the contemporary lifestyle are compatible with authentic characteristics of historical city centres and which are incompatible with them. It provides the opportunity of defining some parameters for identifying functional and spatial structures of commercial buildings in the historical city centre and evaluation of functions which are compatible with the buildings.
This thesis is a deep examination of changes in the commercial functions in Bursa historical trade centre in time and impacts of this change on authentic characteristics of han structures. Functional change in this area has not been studied this depth before. Information obtained from the analysis done on Bursa Historical City Centre can be used as a basis for studies examining Bursa Historical City Centre from different aspects.
6.2. Suggestion for Further Studies
This study offers an insight into the detection of the relationship between functional structure of historical buildings in historical city centres and authentic characteristics of these historical buildings within the frame of urban planning. Further studies could be conducted with three different approaches:
160
 Further studies using a similar methodological framework for evaluating different case studies can be organized in two different ways. First, the impacts of functional change in the historical process on Ottoman inner city hans located in the historical city centres and contemporary commercial functions located in them can be analyzed. Second, a comparative analysis can be done for city hans currently in use, located in different cities or even in different countries, instead of a single case in one city.
 Further studies on spatial structure of the historical city centres can be carried out using a similar theoretical framework. In these studies, spatial change of the historical city centres in the historical process, and spaces which lost their authentic characteristics and the causes of deterioration can be examined.
 Further studies of the case study in order to get involved in other aspects of the conservation or planning processes can be carried out based on the hypothetical and methodological study on the Historical City Centre of Bursa. These studies can be complementary to the field work of this study. Examples could be the approach of Bursa Council for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets to the problems and solutions in identification of functions located in historical buildings in the historical city centre, structure of civil society organisations composed of the han and bazaar associations and its impact on preservation of the historical city centre with its authentic characteristics.
161
REFERENCES
Bursa Şer’iye Sicilleri:
A111 Numaralı Defter : H. 968 tarihli Bursa Şer’iye Sicili.
A113 Numaralı Defter : H. 988 tarihli Bursa Dava Sicili.
A127 Numaralı Defter : H. 991-993 tarihli Muhallefat Kayıtları.
B10 Numaralı Defter : H. 999 tarihli Bursa Şer’iye Sicili.
B15 Numaralı Defter : H. 1003-1004 tarihli Bursa Dava Sicili.
Ahunbay, Z., (1999), Tarihi çevre koruma ve restorasyon, YEM Yayınları, İstanbul.
Akar, T., (2009), “Tarihi Ticari Merkezlerde Koruma ve Kullanım Sorunları”, Tarihi Çevrede Koruma: Yaklaşımlar, Uygulamalar-1, Dosya 14/1.
Akkılıç, Y., (1999), “Bursa’da Kapalıçarşı (Nasıl Oluştu, Gelişti, Yandı-Yakıldı, Bugünlere Geldi?)”, Olay Gazetesinin “Bursa’nın Hayat Sahnesi Kapalıçarşı” ekinden, Mart 1999.
Akkılıç, Y., (2001), “Halkevleri ve Bursa Halkevi”, Bursa Defteri, 11/39, Bursa.
Akkılıç, Y., (2003), “Bursa’da Kapalıçarşı”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalıçarşı, T.E.D. Bursa Koleji Eğitim Derneği, Bursa.
Aksulu, I., (1999), “Kaybolan Bir Mirasın Ardından Tokat Kenti ve Koruma Sorunları”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Aktar, A., (1996), “Bursa’da Devlet ve Ekonomi”, Bir Masaldı Bursa, YKY, İstanbul
Aktüre, S., (1973), “17. Yüzyıl Başından 19. Yüzyıl Ortasına Kadarki Dönemde Anadolu Osmanlı Şehrinde Şehirsel Yapının Değişme Süreci”, METU, Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, I/1, Ankara.
Aktüre, S., (1978), 19. yy Sonunda Anadolu Kenti Mekansal Yapı Çözümlemesi, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi, Ankara.
Altaban, Ö., (1999), “Bursa Büyükşehirde Kentsel Gelişmenin Bir Bilançosu”, Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluşunun 700. Yıldönümünde Bursa ve Yöresi, 06-08 Mayıs 1999, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
162
Aru, K. A., (1998), Türk Kenti, YEM Yayınları.
Asatekin, G., (1993), “2000’li Yılların Türkiyesi’nde Koruma Sorunsalı ve Aykırı Bir Belge: Nara Belgesi 1994”, Mimarlık Dergisi, sayı: 311, Mayıs-Haziran 2003. Asatekin, G., (2004), Kültür ve Doğa Varlıklarımız: Neyi, Niçin, Nasıl Korumalıyız?, Ankara : T.C.Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
Aslanoğlu, R., (2000), Kent, Kimlik ve Küreselleşme, Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa.
Aydın, E., Ö., (2008), “Bursa’nın Tarihi Kent Kimliği ve Sürdürülebilirliği”, Bursa Defteri, Sayı:31-32, Mayıs 2008.
Ayverdi, E., H., (1989), Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806-855 (1403-1451) II, İstanbul.
Bağbancı, Ö., K., (2007), Bursa Hanlar Bölgesi Değişim ve Dönüşüm Sürecinin İncelenmesi ve Bölgenin Korunması Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi.
Bağbancı, Ö., (2008), “Formation of the Historical City Centre in Bursa: The First Capital City of Ottoman Empire”, World Applied Sciences Journal, 4:3, 343.
Bağbancı, Ö., (2010), “Hanlar Bölgesinin 14. yy dan Günümüze Değişim ve Dönüşüm Süreci”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Batkan, Ö., (1996), “Bursa Kentsel Gelişimi ve Planlama Süreci”, Bir Masaldı Bursa, Ed. Engin Yenal, YKY, İstanbul
Baykal, K., (1948), Tarihte Bursa Yangınları, Bursa.
Baykal, K., (1950), Bursa ve Anıtları, Bursa. Besim, D. Y., and Akat, E. T., (2011), “Bodrum’daki Hanlar Üzerine Saptamalar, Kullanımlarındaki Değişim ve Bir Öneri”, Hanlar, Kervansaraylar, Geleneksel&Modern Mimaride Taş Sempozyumu, 29-30 Kasım 2007, Antalya.
Bilenser, E., (2003), “Tarihi Hanlar ve Geleceğe Aktarımı”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalıçarşı, T.E.D. Bursa Koleji Eğitim Derneği, Bursa.
Binan, C., (1999), “Pirinç Hanı ve Koruma Sorunları”, Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluşunun 700. Yıldönümünde Bursa ve Yöresi, 06-08 Mayıs 1999, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
Birsel, C., (1999), “Ondokuzuncu Yüzyılda Osmanlı Liman Kenti İzmir’de Kültürler, Mekan Üretim Biçimleri ve Kent Mekanının Dönüşümü”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Bursa Ansiklopedisi, (2002), Burdef Yayınları, Bursa.
163
Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, (2010), Tarihi Çarşı ve Hanlar Bölgesi, Yaşayan Müze Kent Bursa, Bursa Kitaplığı.
Bursa Defteri, (2000), “Bursa’nın Kentsel Gelişimi”, sayı:5, Bursa.
Cadwallender, M., (1996), Urban Geography on Analytical Approach, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Cameron, C., (2009), “The Evolution of the Concept of Outstanding Universal Value”, Concerving the Authentic, Ed: Nicholas Stanley-Price and Joseph King, ICCROM.
Canpolat, E., (1999), “Bursa’da Kentleşme Süreci”, Bursa Defteri, 2/23.
Carter, H., (1983), An Introduction to Urban Historical Geography, London.
Cerasi, M., (1999), Osmanlı Kenti: Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Kent Mimarisi, Çev:A. Ataöv, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Ceylan, O., (1989), Geleneksel Türk Osmanlı Çarşı Yapılarının Oluşumu, Gelişimi ve Yakın Doğu Kültürleri ile Olan Etkileşimleri, M.S.Ü., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Cezar, M., (1985), Tipik Yapılarıyla Osmanlı Şehirciliğinde Çarşı ve Klasik Dönem İmar Sistemi, M.S.Ü. Yayını, İstanbul.
Cohen, N., (2001), Urban Planning, Conservation, and Planning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Çakıcı, S., (2008), A Proposal for Preservation and Rehabilitation of Yeni Galle Pazarı Hanı and Its Immediate Surrounding in Bursa, Master Thesis, METU.
Çakmak, Z., (1999). “Kümeleme Analizinde Geçerlilik Problemi ve Kümeleme Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:3, Kasım.
Çarıkcı, E., (2010), “1954-1964 Döneminde Bursa’da Bazı Esnaf Davranışları ve Dayanışmaları”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Çetin, S., (2011), “Dönüşüm Sürecinin Tarihi Kent Merkezleri Üzerine Etkileri: Isparta Örneğinde Bir İnceleme”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, cilt: 27, sayı: 2, Nisan 2011.
Coşkun, Z., (1999), Efsanelerde Bursa, Bursa Defteri, 1:105.
Dalsar, F., (1960), Türk Sanayi ve Ticaret Tarihinde Bursa’da İpekçilik, İstanbul, 1960.
Dalsar, F., (1960a), Bursa’da İpekçilik, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayını, 1960.
Dara, R.,(2000), Saklı Zamanlar, Asa Basımevi, Bursa.
Darkot, B., (1994), Bursa maddesi,(806-810), İslam Ansiklopedisi, 2. cilt, Maarif Matbaası, İstanbul
164
Demirağ, B., (1989), “Pirinç Han’ın Yeniden Doğuşu: Geri Gelen Güzellik”, Bursa Hakimiyet, 14-15-16 Haziran 1989.
Dinçel, Ö. F., (2009), Bursa Geyve Han (Yorgancılar Çarşısı, Gelincik Çarşısı, Sipahi Çarşısı, Payigah Hanı, Sandıkçılar Hanı), Osmangazi Belediyesi, Bursa.
Doğru, H., (1995), XVIII. Yüzyıla Kadar Osmanlı Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Görüntüsü, Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını, Eskişehir.
Dostoğlu. N., and Oral, E., Ö., (1999), “Bir Osmanlı Başkenti Bursa’nın Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Fiziksel Değişim Süreci”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Dörtok Abacı, Z., (2005), Modernleşme Sürecinde Bursa Kenti’nin Mekansal ve Sosyal Değişimi (1860-1910), Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
Dörtok Abacı, Z., (2007), “Bursa’nın Kent Dokusundaki Değişim (18-19.yüzyıl)”, Bursa’nın Kentsel ve Mimari Gelişimi, Ed: Cafer Çiftçi.
Enlil, Z.M, (1999), “19. yy İstanbul’unda Konut Yapı Gelenekleri ve Kent Kültürü”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslararası Bir Miras”, Uluslararası Kongre, 25-27 Kasım 1999, YEM, İstanbul.
Erder, L.T., (1976), The Making of Industrial Bursa: Economic Activity and Ppopulation in a Turkish City 1835-1975, Phd Thesis, Princeton University.
Ergenç, Ö., (1980), “Osmanlı Şehirlerinde Esnaf Örgütlerinin Fiziki Yapıya Etkileri”, Türkiye’nin Sosyo-Ekonomik Tarihi (1071-1920), Ankara.
Ergenç, Ö., (2006), XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa, Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Ergenç, Ö., (2010), “Arşiv Kayıtşarına Göre Osmanlı Döneminde Bursa Çarşısı”, Çarşının Öyküsü, Bursa.
Faroqhi, S., (1993), Osmanlıda Kentler ve Kentliler, Çev: N. Kalaycıoğlu, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul.
Fielden and Jokilehto, (1998), Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, ICCROM, Rome.
Fitch, J. M., (1990), Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, University of Virginia Press.
Gabriel, A., (1958), Bir Türk Başkenti Bursa.
165
GEEAYK, (1979), Bursa Kenti Tarihi ve Doğal Sit Alanları Geçiş Dönemi Koruma ve Geliştirme Planı ve Hükümleri konulu 10888 no’lu Kurul Kararı.
Gökçe, B., (2005), “Ankara’da Merkezi İş Alanı ve Merkezler Sisteminin Dönüşümünü Kuramlar ve Merkezlerin Yapısını Etkileyen Siyasalar Üzerinden Tartışmak”, Planlama Dergisi, 2005/4.
Güran, C., (1976), Türk Hanlarının Gelişimi ve İstanbul Hanları Mimarisi, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını.
Herbert, D. T., and Thomas, C., (1990), Cities in Space: City as Place.
Hall, T., (1998), Urban Geography, 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York.
Harvey, D., (1973), Explanation in Geography, London.
İnalcık, H., (1969), “Capital Formation in The Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Economic History, Volume:29, Issue:01, p:97-140.
İnalcık, H.,(1971), “Bursa”, Encyclopedia of Islam, Leden.
İnalcık, H., (2010), “15. ve 16. yy’larda Bursa’da Sanayi ve Ticaret”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Johnson, J. H., (1972), Urban Geography: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd edition, Pergamon Press.
Jokilehto, j., (1999), “A Century of Heritage Conservation”, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 5/3, November 1999.
Jokilehto, J., (2006), “World Heritage: Defining the Outstanding Universal Value”, City and Time 2, 2/1.
Kaplanoğlu, R., (1996), Bursa Yer Adları Ansiklopedisi, Bursa Ticaret Borsası Yayınları, Bursa.
Kaplanoğlu, R., (2001), “Kapalıçarşı Plazaya Karşı”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalı Çarşı, Ed. Ramis Dara, TED Bursa Koleji Kültür Yayınları.
Kaplanoğlu, R., (2003), Doğal ve Tarihi Değerleri ile Bursa, Osmangazi Belediyesi.
Kaplanoğlu, R., (2008), “Bursa’nın Kentsel Gelişmesi”, Bursa Defteri, Sayı:31-32, Mayıs 2008.
Kaplanoğlu, R., Elbas, A., (2007), Bursa Osmangazi İlçesi Okçular Çarşısı, Osmangazi Belediyesi Yayını.
Kaplanoğlu, R., Elbas, A., (2009), Bursa Çarşısının İncisi: Koza Han, Osmangazi Belediyesi Yayını.
166
Karataş, A.İ., (2009), Osmanlı Devleti’nde Gayri Müslimlerin Toplum Hayatı: Bursa Örneği, Gökkubbe Yayınları.
Karataş, A., İ., (2010), “Osmanlı Dönemi’nde Bursa’da Gayrimüslim Esnaf”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Kaygalak, S., (2008), Kapitalizmin Taşrası, 16. Yydan 19. Yya Bursa’da Toplumsal Süreçler ve Mekansal Değişim, İletişim Yayınları. Kayın, E., (2002), “Tarihi Ticaret Merkezi Kemeraltı’nda Değişen Üretim ve Tüketim Modellerinin Yansımaları”, egemimarlik.org/40-41/index.php.
Keleş, R., (2002), Kentleşme Politikası, İmge Yayınevi, 7. Baskı. Keleş, R., (2003), “Kültürel Miras İnsanlığın Ortak Malıdır”, mimar.ist, 2003/4.
Kepeci, K., (1935), Bursa Hanları, Bursa.
Kıray, M., (1998), “Modern Şehirlerin Gelişmesi ve Türkiye’ye Has Bazı Eğilimler”, Kentleşme Yazıları, Bağlam Yayınları.
Kıray, M., (1998), “Az Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Metropolitenleşme Süreçleri”, Kentleşme Yazıları, Bağlam Yayınları.
Kırayoğlu, M., Tanyeli, U., and diğerleri (1999), “Bursa Tartışmaları”, Bursa Defteri, No:2.
Kırayoğlu, K., (2004), Bir Osmanlı Şehri Bursa’da Şehir Merkezi/Hanlar Bölgesi Sorunsalı, İ.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Y.Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
Kırayoğlu, K., (2008), “İlk Osmanlı Kentinin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi”, Geçmişten Geleceğe Yerel Kimlik Sayı 15, Haziran-Temmuz-Ağustos 2008, http://www.tarihikentlerbirligi.org
/i/YerelKimlik/E_Yerel_Kimlik_Sayi_15.pdf.
Knox, P., and Pinch, S., (2000), Urban Social Geography: An Introduction, Longman, Singapore.
Kuban, D., (1968), “Anadolu Türk Şehri”, Vakıflar Dergisi, Sayı:7, s. 53-73. Kuban, D., (1990), Mimarlık Kavramları Tarihsel Perspektif İçinde Mimarlığın Kuramsal Sözlüğüne Giriş, YEM Yayınları.
Kuban, D., (2007), Osmanlı Mimarisi, YEM Yayınları.
Kuban, D., (2010), Türkiye’de Kentsel Koruma Kent Tarihleri ve Koruma Yöntemleri, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Kwanda, T., The Interpretation of Cultural Heritage: The Living Authenticity and the Sense of Place,
167
Leedy, Paul D. and Ormrod, Jeanne E. (2005) Practical Research: Planning and Design, 8th Edition, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
Lowenthal, D., (1994), Changing Criteria of Authenticity, Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, Ed: Larsen, Knut Einar, Nara, Japan, 1-6.11.1994.
Madran, E., (1999), “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Onarım Esnafı (16.-18. Yüzyıllar)”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Mortan, K., Küçükerman, Ö., (2010), Çarşı, Pazar, Ticaret ve Kapalıçarşı, Türkiye İş Bankası, Kültür Yayınları. Niskasaari, K., (2008), “Towards a Socio-culturally Sustainable Definition of Authenticity: Re-thinking the Spirit of Place”, In: 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place – between the tangible and the intangible’, 29 sept – 4 oct 2008, Quebec, Canada. Oğuz, M., (1999), Bursa Tarihi Kent Merkezi ve Yakın Çevresini Oluşturan MİA Alt Bölgesi (Hanlar Bölgesi-Reyhan-Kayhan) İşlevsel Mekansal ve Mimari Analizi , Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Yayınlanmamış Y.Lisans Tezi.
Oğuzoğlu, Y., (1987), “Anadolu Şehirlerinde Osmanlı Döneminde Görülen Yapısal Değişiklikler”, V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını, Ankara.
Oğuzoğlu, Y., (1999), “Osmanlı Döneminde Bursa’da Kentleşmeyi Etkileyen Olgular”, Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluşunun 700. Yıldönümünde Bursa ve Yöresi, 06-08 Mayıs 1999, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
Oğuzoğlu, Y., (2010), “Bursa Çarşısı’ndaki Restorasyon Çalışmalarına Arşiv Belgelerinin Katkısı”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Osmay, S., (1998), “1923’den Bugüne Kent Merkezinin Dönüşümü ”, 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Bilanço 98.
Özcan, Z., (2009), “Kimlik ve Kentsel Koruma”, Belediyeler Dergisi, 2009/43, Ankara.
Özdeş, G., (1953), Türk Çarşıları, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Doçentlik Çalışması.
Özkaya, Y., (2008), 18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Toplumu, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
168
Niskasaari, K., (2008), “Towards a Socio-Culturally Sustainable Definition OF Authenticity Re-Thinking the Spirit of Place”, www.openarchive.icomos.org/2/, last Access 25.04.2010.
Pacione, M., (2005), Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, Routledge, New York.
Pay, S., (2010), “Bursa İvaz Paşa Külliyesi”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Patton, M.Q., (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evolution, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Punch, K. F., (2005), Sosyal Araştırmalara Giriş: Nicel ve Nitel Yaklaşımlar, Siyasal Kitabevi.
Pinon, P., (1999), “Anadolu ve Balkanlar’daki Osmanlı Kentlerinde Kentsel Dokular Tipolojisi Üzerine Bir Deneme”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Pirenne, H., (1956), Ortaçağ Kentleri: Kökenleri ve Ticaretin Canlanması, Çev.: Şadan Karadeniz, İstanbul
Pirenne, H., (1994), Ortaçağ Kentleri, İletişim Yayınları.
Riaubiene, E., (2007), “Evoluation and Trends of Understanding of Authenticity in Heritage Preservation”, Urban Heritage: Research, Interpretation, Education.
Rubin, A., (2010), Essential Research Methods for Social Work, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
Saint-Laurent., (1996), “Bir Tiyatro Aşığı: Ahmet Vefik Paşa ve XIX. Yy sonlarında Bursa’nın Yeniden Biçimlendirilişi”, Bir Masaldı Bursa, Haz: Engin Yenall
Sakaoğlu, N., Akbayar, N., (1999), Osmanlı’da Zenaatten Sanata, I. Cilt Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar, Creative Yayıncılık.
Sakaoğlu, N., (2010), “Geleneksel Meslek Örgütlenmeleri ve Anadolu Çarşıları”, Osmanlı Çarşıları Atlası, Doğan Burda Dergi Yayıncılık.
Say, Ö. Y., (1996), Ticaret Mekanlarının Oluşum ve Gelişim İlkelerinin İncelenerek Tipolojik Açıdan Sınıflandırılması, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, YTÜ Fen Bil. Ens., İstanbul. Seymen, Ü., (1988), Mekan Organizasyonu Bilimlerinde Bilgi Kurumsal Düzeyde Açınımlar: Uygulama Konusu : Kurumsal Bir İrdeleme Bağlamında Tarihi Kent Merkezlerinde Küçük Ölçekli Üretimin Yapısı ve Değişim Süreçleri İzmir Örneği, Basılmamış Doktora tezi, DEÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
169
Sjoberg, G., (2002), “Sanayi Öncesi Kent”, 20. Yüzyıl Kenti, Der. Bülent Duru, Ayten Alkan, İmge Kitabevi.
Stewart, C., and Cash, W.B., (2011), Interviewing: Principles and Prectices, 4th edition, New York : McGraw-Hill.
Stovel, H., (2007), “Effective Use of Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Qualification Conditions”, City&Time, 2 (3).2007.
Suyabatmaz, C., (2003), “Bursa Hanlarından Anılar”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalı Çarşı, Ed. Ramis Dara, TED Bursa Koleji Kültür Yayınları.
Şen, F., (2003), “Bursa’da Köylü Hanları”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalı Çarşı, Ed. Ramis Dara, TED Bursa Koleji Kültür Yayınları.
Tamer C., (1974), “Cumhuriyet Devrinde Eski Eser Anlayışı ve Onarım Faaliyetleri”, Röleve ve Restorasyon Dergisi I, 1974.
Tankut G., (1973), “Osmanlı Şehrinde Ticari Fonksiyonların Mekansal Dağılımı”, VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 25-29 Eylül 1970, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Tanyeli, U.,(1987), Anadulu Türk Kentinde Fiziksel Yapının Evrim Süreci: 11-15. yy, İTÜ Yayını, İstanbul.
Tanyeli, U., (1999), “Bursa’da Erken Osmanlı Kentleşmesinin Sorunları”, Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluşunun 700. Yıldönümünde Bursa ve Yöresi, 06-08 Mayıs 1999, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
Tatlıdil H, (1992) Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analiz, H.Ü. Fen Fakültesi İstatistik Bölümü, Ankara.
Tekeli, İ., (1987), “Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyete Kentsel Dönüşüm ”, Tanzimat’ta Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, 4. Cilt, İletişim Yayınları.
Tekeli, İ., (1999), “Bursa’nın Tarihinde Üç Ayrı Dönüşüm Dönemi”, Osmanlı Devletinin Kuruluşunun 700. Yıldönümünde Bursa ve Yöresi, 06-08 Mayıs 1999, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
Tekeli, İ., (2007), “Anadolu’da Kent Tarihi Yazıcılığı Üzerine Bir Yöntem”, Bursa’nın Kentsel ve Mimari Gelişimi Sempozyum Kitabı, Ed. Cafer Çiftçi, 07-08 Nisan 2007, Osmangazi Belediyesi
Tekeli, İ., at all, (1976), Gecekondulu, Dolmuşlu, İşportalı Şehir, Cem Yaynevi.
Thorns, C. D., (2004), Kentlerin Dönüşümü: Kent Teorisi ve Kentsel Yaşam, Soyak Yayınları.
170
Tonak, H.,(2003), “Önceki Gün Tuzpazarı’nda”, Tarihi Bursa Hanları ve Kapalı Çarşı, TED Bursa Koleji Kültür Yayınları.
Tutal, O., (1999), “Osmanlı Kentinde Çarşı Mekanı Ve Üsküp Çarşısı”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Tutal, O., (1999), “Osmanlı Kentinde Çarşı Mekanı ve Üsküp Çarşısı”, Osmanlı Mimarlığının 7 Yüzyılı “Uluslarüstü Bir Miras”, YEM Yayınları.
Uysal, M., (2004), Tarihi Merkezlerde Ticaret Mekanlarının Değişim/Dönüşüm Analiz Yaklaşımı: Konya, Kayseri, Sivas Örneği, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
Üstündağ, N., (1999), Bursa’nın Kentsel Gelişim Sürecinde Merkez Yapısının Analizi, Uludağ Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü, Basılmamış Y. Lisans Tezi.
Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, (1983), Türkiye'de Vakıf Abideler ve Eski Eserler III (Bursa İl Merkezi), Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını.
Vardar, B., (2008), “Osmanlı Modernleşme Döneminden 21. yy Bursa’sına Kentsel Gelişim: 20. yy Bursası’nda Planlama Örnekleri”, Bursa Şehrinin Gelişmesi ve Kentsel Planlama Kültürü, Haz: Yusuf Oğuzoğlu, Osmangazi Belediyesi, Bursa.
Vural, T., (2007), “Tarihsel Süreklilik İçinde Bursa Kapalıçarşı ve Hanlar Bölgesi”, Bursa’nın Kentsel Ve Mimari Gelişimi Sempozyum Kitabı, Ed: Cafer Çiftçi, 07-08 Nisan 2007, Bursa.
Yavaş, D., (2008), “Bursa’nın Kuruluşunda Orhan Gazi ve Muradiye Külliyeleri”, Bursa Şehrinin Gelişmesi ve Kentsel Planlama Kültürü, Haz: Yusuf Oğuzoğlu, Osmangazi Belediyesi, Bursa.
Yenal, E., (1996), “Osmanlı Öncesi Bursa”, Bir Masaldı Bursa, Haz: Engin Yenal, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Yenal, E., (1996), “Osmanlı Başkenti, Osmanlı Kenti Bursa”, Bir Masaldı Bursa, Haz: Engin Yenal, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Yenen, Z., (1987), Vakıf Kurumu-İmaret Sistemi- Bağlamında Osmanlı Dönemi Türk Kentlerinin Kuruluş ve Gelişim İlkeleri, Doktora Tezi, İTÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Yenen, Z., (2010), “Kurumsal ve Ekonomik Yapılanma Koşutunda Bursa Ticaret Merkezinin Fizik Mekanının Oluşumu”, Çarşının Öyküsü-Bursa, Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
171
Yerasimos, S, (1996), “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları Üzerine”, Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Kentleri, çev: Ali Berktay, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Yetkin, S. K., (1965), İslam Mimarisi, Ankara.
Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H., (2011),Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 8. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yin, R. K., (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yüceer, H., (2005), An evaluation of interventions in architectural conservation: New exterior additions to historic buildings , İzmir Yüksel Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Internet resources:
http://www.academia.edu/484331/The_Interpretation_of_Cultural_Heritage_the_Living_Authenticity_and_the_Sense_of_Place, last Access 3.01.2012
http://tr.wikipedia.org
http://www.kumid.eu/euproject/admin/userfiles/dokumanlar/K-Burra-Tuzu%C4%9Fu,-ICOMOS-1999.pdf
http://www.kumid.eu/euproject/admin/userfiles/dokumanlar/K-ICOMOS-Yeni-Zelanda,1992.pdf
http://www.kumid.eu/euproject/admin/userfiles/dokumanlar/K-Roma-Bildirgesi,-ICOMOS,-1983.pdf
http://www.tarihikentlerbirligi.org/i/YerelKimlik/E_Yerel_Kimlik_Sayi_15.pdf, last accessed 23. 01. 2012
http://www.kumid.eu/euproject/admin/userfiles/dokumanlar/K-Somut-olmayan-Kulturel-Mirasin-Korunmasi,-2003.pdf
http://www.mo.org.tr/mimarlikdergisi/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=8&RecID=213
172
APPENDIX A
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Şeref Akgün, Bursa Tarihi Çarşı ve Hanlar Birliği, 10.07.2010
Hasan Tunçman, Koza Han Yönetimi, 10.07.2010
Şinasi Çelikkol, Aynalı Çarşı Yönetimi, 15.07.2010
İhsan Gür, Uzun Çarşı Yönetimi, 16.07.2010
Recep Gürbüz, Tuz Han Yönetimi, 16.07.2010
Muammer Dündar, Eski Ipek Han Yönetimi, 16.07.2010 Muhsin Özyıldırım, Okçular Çarşısı Yönetimi, 17.07.2010
Osman Çürüksulular, Fidan Han Yönetimi, 19.07.2010
Doğan Alakoç, Emir Han Yönetimi, 19.07.2010
Sami Ekin, Geyve Han, Gelincik Çarşısı, Yorgancılar Çarşısı Yönetimi, 20.07.2010 Birben Durmaçalış, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, Architect, 21.07.2010.
Aziz Elbas, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, 21. 07. 2010.
Selda Savcı, Osmangazi Municipalty, Architect, 22.07.2010.
Mehmet Süreyya, Pirinç Han Yönetimi, 25.07.2010
Hasan Gülayan, Kapalı Çarşı Yönetimi, 25.07.2010
İsmail Erulu, Bakırcılar Çarşısı, Gümüşçüler Çarşısı Yönetimi, 25.07.2010
Coşkun Abraşoğlu, İvazpaşa Çarşısı Yönetimi, 26.07.2010
Faruk Islak, Havlucular Çarşısı Yönetimi, 26.07.2010 Özcan Altaban, METU Department of City and.Regional Planning, Assoc. Prof. Dr., 21.04.2011 Emre Madran, METU Department of Architecture, Assoc. Prof. Dr., 21.04.2011 Ayşe Işık, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality, city planner, 09.03.2011 Orhan Efe, Architect, 10.03.2011 Mehdi Kamruz, A Board Member of BTCH, 10.03.2011 Raif Kaplanoğlu, Researcher, 10.03.2011
173
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC SURVEY FORM
BURSA TARİHİ TİCARET MERKEZİNDE İŞLETME SAHİPLERİNE YÖNELİK ANKET FORMU
Ankete katılım esasları:
Bu anket Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü’nde yapılmakta olan bir doktora tezine bilgi sağlamak ve veri tabanı oluşturmak amacı ile düzenlenmiştir.
Ankete katılım gönüllülük esasına dayanmaktadır. Bu ankette vereceğiniz cevaplar tamamen gizli tutulacaktır. Anket bilgileri bilimsel araştırma ve istatistiki amaçlar dışında ticari ya da başka hiçbir biçimde kullanılmayacaktır. Ankette adınız, soyadınız, adres ve telefon bilgileriniz alınmayacaktır. Anket katılımcısına kolaylık sağlamak ve en az zamanda anketin tamamlanabilmesi için birçok soruda beklenen cevaplar sıralanmıştır. Ancak herhangi bir cevap durumunuzu tam açıklamıyorsa veya o bölüm ile ilgili eklemek istedikleriniz varsa her bölüm sonunda açıklamalar için ayrılan alana açıklamalarınızı yazabilirsiniz. Soruları yanıtlarken aklınıza ilk gelen yanıtı işaretlemeniz, samimi düşüncelerinizi yansıtmanız ve anketteki tüm soruları yanıtlamanız anketin sağlıklı sonuçlar verebilmesi için önemlidir.
Tez Çalışması Sorumlusu ve Anket Düzenleyicisi:
Ayşegül KELEŞ ERİÇOK(Araştırma Görevlisi)
Mimarlık Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü
Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara
e-mail: akericok@gmail.com
0 (555) 343 86 79
Tez Yürütücüsü:
Prof. Dr. Numan Tuna
Mimarlık Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü
Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara
1- İŞYERİNE AİT BİLGİLER
1.1- Yapıda mülkiyet durumu nedir?
( ) Mal Sahibi
( ) Kiracı
( ) Diğer (belirtiniz)............................................................................................
1.2- Herhangi bir odaya, derneğe, meslek grubuna üye misiniz?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise:
Hangi oda, dernek ya da meslek grubuna üyesiniz?
............................................................................................
1.3- İşyeriniz ne kadar zamandır burada? (yıl olarak belirtiniz)
............................................................................................
1.4- İşyeriniz daha önce neredeydi?
174
.............................................................................................
1.5- Şimdiki işyerinizde işinizi değiştirdinizmi?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise:
İşinizi değiştirme yılınız:....................................................
Bundan önce aynı işyerinde yaptığınız iş ne idi?.........................................
1.6- Şimdi bulunduğunuz işyerinde sizden önce ne gibi bir iş yapıldığını biliyormusunuz?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise:
Yapılan işin cinsi nedir?...........................................................
1.7- İşyerinizin fabrika, atölye, depo, merkez haberleşme bürosu gibi ek başka bir tesisi varmı?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise ek tesisin cinsini belirtiniz:.............................................
1.8- İşyerinizin başka şubesi var mı?
..............................................................................................
1.9- İşyerinizin bu bölgede olmasının en önemli nedeni aşağıdakilerden hangisidir?
( ) kiraların uygunluğu
( ) eve yakınlık
( ) müşteriye yakın olma isteği
( ) benzer faaliyetlerin bu bölgede bulunması
( ) diğer (belirtiniz).........................................................................................
1.10- İşyerinizde kaç kişi çalışıyor?
İş sahibi ve ortakları:……………kişi
Ücretli çalışanlar :……………kişi
Aile bireyleri :……………kişi
2- TARİHİ ÇARŞIDA MEKÂNSAL VE İŞLEVSEL KALİTE
2.1- İşyerinizde onarım-yeni düzenleme gibi değişiklik yapmayı düşünüyor musunuz? Varsa neler?
.…………………………………………………………………………………
2.2- İşyerinizin depo, ilave alan gibi ihtiyaçları var mı?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evetse:
Ne gibi ihtiyaçları olduğunu belirtiniz?..........................................................
175
2.3- Bu bölgenin tarihsel dokusuna zarar verdiğini düşündüğünüz ve bölge dışına taşınmasını uygun bulduğunuz iş kollarını belirtir misiniz?
...............................................................................................................................
2.4- İşyerinizin yakın olmasını istediğiniz işkolları nelerdir?
……………………………..................................................................................
2.5- İşyerinizin yakın olmasını kesinlikle istemediğiniz işkolları nelerdir?
..............................................................................................................
2.6- İşyerinizin hanlar bölgesinde bulunması, işyerinizin ekonomik gelişmesine olumlu katkı yapıyor mu?
( ) gelişiyor
( ) durgun
( ) geriliyor
( ) diğer (belirtiniz).......................................................................................
2.7- Tarihi çarşı ve hanların işyeriniz açısından sunduğu imkânlardan memnun musunuz?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevabınız evetse:
Tarihi çarşının hangi imkânlarından memnunsunuz?
………………………………………………………………………………….
Cevabınız hayırsa:
Tarihi çarşının imkânlarından memnun olmadığınız ya da yetersiz olduğunu düşündüğünüz durumlar nelerdir? Neler yapılmasını isterdiniz?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
2.8- Yakın gelecekte tarihi çarşıda kalmayı düşünüyor musunuz?
( ) Evet
( ) Hayır
Cevap hayır ise;
Neden gitmek istediğinizi belirtimisiniz?...............................................................
Nereye gitmek istediğinizi belirtirmisiniz?.............................................................
2.9- Tarihi çarşının geleceği üzerine düşünceleriniz nelerdir?
( ) iyiye gidecek
( ) aynı kalacak
( ) kötüleşecek
176
APPENDIX C
THE DISASTERS AFFECTING THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF
HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
The original urban fabric of Bursa99, composed mainly of wooden buildings, was damaged by several fires, earthquakes and invasions (Table A.1). One of the causes of the major fires that destroyed the city was the severe storms in autumn and winter. These storms removed the rooftops of the historic structures and caused the growth of albeit small fires (Baykal 1948, 7). Another cause was the fires started by arsonists who sought to plunder in some past periods (Baykal 1948, 7).
The first major disaster experienced by the city was Timur’s invasion in 1402. In 1413100, Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey set Orhan Gazi Mosque and the surrounding area on fire (Baykal 1948, 7). A major earthquake happened in 1417. Although the actual effect of the earthquake is unknown, it is believed that many houses and baths had been destroyed (Baykal 1948, 7). In 1481, during the reign of Sultan Cem, there were great destructions (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 41). As a result of the fire in 1489, 25 neighborhoods were completely destroyed. The fire in 1491 (in the Fidan Han) destroyed several monuments (Baykal 1948, 12). The whole area between the Great Mosque and Çıra Market was completely destroyed in 1493. The Tuz Bazaar was burnt down in 1512 (Baykal 1948, 14). In 1584, some sections of the Emir Han were damaged due to the fire that took place in the herbalists’ bazaar to the north of Emir Han (Baykal 1948, 23; Vural 2007, 294; Akkılıç 1999, 73).
99 Despite fires, earthquakes and invasions, the urban axes of foundation and development and the street and road network survived until the present day with few modifications.
100 According to Raif Kaplanoğlu, the date of the fire was 1414 (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 41).
177
In 1520, half of the city was destroyed because of an earthquake and fire. In 1544, a fire took place in the bazaar. This fire destroyed many shops with the goods inside (9). There was another fire which destroyed half of the city in 1590 (Baykal 1948, 20). A significant part of the Covered Bazaar was damaged by the fire that happened during Celali uprising in 1608 (Vural 2007, 295; Akkılıç 1999, 74). Another major earthquake occurred in 1674 during which some hans were destroyed (Baykal 1948, 20). The fire in 1729 damaged the Kayhan Bazaar, and the fire in 1755, the Sipahi Bazaar, Saraçhane (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 42; Vural 2007, 295; Akkılıç 1999, 74), Geyve Han and the Çıra Market (Kaplanoğlu 2008, 42). The Bakırcılar Bazaar was burnt down by the fire in 1760 (Akkılıç 1999, 74). Seven major fires occurred in the city between 1761 and 1804.101
The biggest and most destructive fire of Bursa happened 1801 (Baykal 1948, 33). This fire burned down two-thirds of the city (Baykal 1948, 33; Kaplanoğlu 2008, 42). The fire first occurred in the castle (around the Green Shrine) and spread out to the east and west of the city.
As a result of the earthquake and the consequent fire in 1855, almost all the historical monuments in the city were destroyed. The report no. 20363 and its annex registered by Istanbul prime ministry archive management provide some information about the effect of the earthquake that happened in 1855 in Bursa on Bursa bazaar and the surrounding historic buildings (mosques, mausoleums, madrasas, hospices and hans) of (Oğuzoğlu 2010, 76). According to this report:
The minaret of Orhan Gazi Mosque and the school nearby collapsed. There is less damage in the Orhan Gazi hospice. There are cracks in the domes of the Great Mosque, and the school located next to the minaret on its right side was demolished. Most of the mosques and small mosques in the city centre were damaged but some of them survived the earthquake without any damage. Kayaganzade Mosque located in the bazaar and Hayrettinpaşa Mosque in Tuz Bazaar were completely destroyed. The Eski-Yeni Han,
101 The fire in 1767 completely destroyed loggers, butchers, barber shops, coffee house, 12 shops, 5 cellars, one plumbery built in the area where Doğan Gözü Han had formerly occupied. Kayhan Bazaar was burnt down in 1771. Another major fire took place in Setbaşı in 1772. In 1773, Basmane and Armenian neighborhood were burnt down. For more information, see Baykal 1948, 32-33.
178
Karacabey Han and Demir Han of Bursa were destroyed. The Kapan Han, Tahtakale Han and Mudanya Han were patially demolished. There are cracks in some parts of the İpek Han, Koza Han, Emir Han, Fidan Han, Pirinç Han, Geyve Han and other hans (Oğuzoğlu 2010, 76).
During the earthquake, a fire started out which burned down the area between the Saman Market and Tuz Bazaar (Baykal 1948, 37). The restoration works after the earthquake and fire had been superficial and inconsistent (Gabriel 1958, 179). The structure was reinforced without considering the original building or repairing the demolished parts (Gabriel 1958, 179). There were also some annexes that did not comply with the general plan of the building (Gabriel 1958, 179).
There were other fires in 1863, 1870 and 1877 in various parts of the city.102 In 1889, there was a fire on the west side of the Great Mosque, which burned down all the shops to the west gate of the Great Mosque (Baykal 1948, 39; Bursa Ansiklopedisi 2002, 988–999). In 1900, a fire took place which burned down the whole Tuz Bazaar (the third section of the Grand Bazaar which extends up to the municipality building from the Nalıncılar Bath) (Baykal 1948, 40). The fire in 1904 burned down 4 shops in the Pirinç Han (26). In 1904, 1905 and 1906 there were fires in the Kayan Bazaar.103 Several shops were damaged in the Koza Han and Tuz Bazaar area due to the fire in 1927 (Baykal 1948, 43).
The fire that affected the historical commercial centre the most took place in the Covered Bazaar in 1958. The fire started out in a book cover workshop located in the Book Bazaar and destroyed almost all the bazaar. In this fire Sahaflar Çarşısı, Emir Han, Kapalı çarşı, Aynalı Çarşı, Kuyumcular Çarşısı, Gelincik Çarşısı, Yorgancılar Çarşısı, Arakiyeciler, Saraçhane, Bakırcılar, Köfüncüler Çarşıları and Çıra Pazarı completely burned, additionally Koza Han and Ticaret Borsası partially burned (Akkılıç 1999, 74).
102 In 1863, a fire took place in Setbaşı. It crossed Gökdere through Setbaşı Bridge and reached the opposite neighborhoods. Kayhan Bazaar was burnt down in 1870. In 1877, the area between Karaşeyh Mosque and Court Cath was burnt down. For more information, see Baykal 1948, 38–39.
103 During the fire in 1940, 40 shops, 14 houses and a bakery were burnt down, whereas the fire in 1905 burned down grain and lumber shops. For more information, see Baykal 1948, 41-42.
179
Table A.1. Disasters affecting the historical city centre
Disasters
Year
Location
Effected area
Invasion
1402
▪ All of the city
Invasion
1413
Orhan cami and the surroundings
Earthquake
1417
▪ Many houses and baths had been destroyed
Fire
1489
▪ 25 neighbourhoods were completely destroyed.
Fire
1491
Fidan han
▪ Several monuments were destroyed.
Fire
1493
Ulucami
▪ The whole area between Ulucami and Çıra Pazarı was completely destroyed.
Fire
1512
Tuz pazarı çarşısı
▪ Tuz Bazaar was burnt down
Fire &
Earthquake
1520
▪ Half of the city was destroyed.
Fire
1544
Çarşı
▪ Many shops with the goods inside were destroyed.
Fire
1584
Emir hanın kuzeyi aktarlar çarşısı
▪ Some sections of Emir Han were damaged.
Fire
1590
▪ Half of the city was destroyed.
Fire
1608
Kapalıçarşı
▪ A significant part of Kapalıçarşı was damaged.
Earthquake
1674
▪ Some hans were destroyed.
Fire
1755
▪ Kazzazhane
▪ Sipahi Çarşısı
▪ Saraçhane
▪ Çıra Pazarı
▪ Geyve Han
Fire
1801
Inner part of citadel
▪ Two-thirds of the city was burned.
Earthquake
1855
▪ Almost all the historical monuments in the city were destroyed.
Fire
1855
▪ Kapalıçarşı
▪ Surrounding historic building.
Fire
1889
▪ All the shops to the West gate of the Ulucami were burned.
Fire
1900
▪ All Tuz pazarı were burned
Fire
1904
Pirinç han
▪ 4 shops in the Pirinç Han were burned.
Fire
1927
▪ Koza Han
▪ Tuz Pazarı
Fire
1958
▪ Sahaflar Çarşısı
▪ Emir Han
▪ Kapalıçarşı
▪ Aynalı Çarşı
▪ Kuyumcular Çarşısı
▪ Ticaret Borsası
▪ Gelincik Çarşısı
▪ Yorgancılar Çarşısı
▪ Arakiyeciler
▪ Saraçhane
▪ Bakırcılar
▪ Köfüncüler
▪ Küfeciler
▪ Çıra Pazarı
180
APPENDIX D
SOME PHOTOS ABOUT KAPALIÇARŞI FIRE IN 1958
Figure A.1. Kapalıçarşı in 1960 (http://www.bursadabugun.com/galeri/haber/1958-kapalicarsi-yanginindan-geriye-bu-kareler-kaldi-2143/23.html, last accessed, 07 09 2011)
181
Figure A.2. Kapalıçarşı fire in 1962 (http://www.bursadabugun.com/galeri/haber/1958-kapalicarsi-yanginindan-geriye-bu-kareler-kaldi-2143/26.html, last accessed 07.09.2011)
Figure A. 3. Yeni Ant newspaper dated 25.8.1958 (http://www.bursadakultur.org/bursa_yangini_2.htm, last accessed, 07.09.2011)
182
APPENDIX E
PLANNING HISTORY OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
1- From 19th century to the years of republic:
 Bursa was formed in the mid-19th century
 The only centre of the city was the Hanlar District
 Each complex was the centre of a neighborhood
 Conditions resulting in active transformation as a result of planned interventions in the city
 In 1855 a great earthquake destroyed a great part of the city (Akkılıç 2001, Kaplanoğlu 2008, Tekeli 1999)
 In 1862 the Suphi Bey Map was prepared, the first comprehensive map
 Governors reshaped the city centre by changing the axes and connections in the city centre.
 Ahmet Vefik Paşa period: Hisar-Muradiye axis was reinforced and thus the connection between the industrial District and the city centre was strengthened.
Roads and squares formed in the surroundings of Heykel (Akkılıç 2001).
 Nazif Paşa: Mudanya road was reinforced (the main highway to Istanbul)
 Ahmet Münir Paşa: Atatük avenue axis and Ulucami axis expanded.
 Mümtaz Paşa: The most important axes were opened such as Fevzi Cakmak axis, Cumhuriyet Avenue axis determining the borders of Hanlar District and the Altıparmak connection of Atatürk avenue (Akkılıç 2001, Kaplanoğlu 2008, Tekeli 1999).
 No integral planning strategy in this period
 Partial plans according to the visions of ruling parties or governors
183
 Main objective is to make the city look modern by connecting or reinforcing the connections between centres and sub-centres
 Axes were formed that were not in harmony with the organic structure of the city
 Destructive effect of joining city connection axes in the Han District on historical pattern of city centre.
2-Republic period:
 1923-1960
 No local institutions yet
 Plans made by foreign planning experts
 1923-1940- Lörcher plan (not applied completely)
 Centre – Castle connection
 City hall, income office, court house, cinema and Ahmet Vefik Paşa Theater were built on Atatürk Avenue axis (Akkılıç 2001).
 Administrative centres joined trade centres.
 Atatürk Avenue axis became the most important axis of the city centre.
 Centre quality of Han District was reinforced (Akkılıç 2001, Kaplanoğlu 2008).
 1940-1960 Prost Plan
 Current axes in the city were reinforced and a linear integral approach was adopted in the historical centre (monuments were constructed by taking buildings as landmarks)
 Unforeseen structure density decreased the visibility of the buildings.
 Axes were unidentified.
 Han District became difficult to perceive in the city pattern.
 1960-1970 Piccinato Plan
 1958 fire (covered bazaar fire) caused great destruction in the historical centre
 First local planning unit in Bursa (architect Emin Canpolat).
 1/4000 Bursa Master Plan
o The most comprehensive work
o Preserving the monumental structures of the city
184
o Predicted a connection between a strong trade axis and a new business centre near Santral Garaj
o Predicted Hanlar District as the most important special project area.
o Evaluated Hanlar District as a city trade centre.
o Han structures were rehabilitated and cleaned, and new trade structures and covered bazaars were constructed with modern construction techniques
o Space was left for roads and parking areas which increased the density of traffic.
o Effective in the formation of the Covered Bazaar axis.
 1970-1980 (Master Plan Bureau studies)
 Governor planning office was established in 1970
 Infrastructures were established for data collection and further studies.
 1976 (1/25000 scale Bursa Plan)
o Determination of the Metropolitan boundary and ova conservation decisions
o Special protected areas and determination of site values and their protection
o Increased density in conservation areas and prevention of structural order change
o No decision about historical pattern in central development planning (Oğuz 1999).
 1979 GEEAYK decisions
o In 1978, the historical, archeological and natural sites of Bursa were determined.
o In 1979 central business District was directed toward the north of the Kayhan neighborhood. The Han District preserved its function as the current trade centre (GEEAYK 1979).
 1984 1/5000 Bursa Master Plan
o Insufficient for solving the special problems of the historical centre.
o Structure and height control to preserve the historical pattern of the city centre
185
o Textile industry moved from traditional han to new business centres.
o Intense structuring during destroy – construct period. Traffic jams increased and as a result historical pattern was harmed to great extent.
3-After 1990:
 1995 Master Plan revision
o No different decision relating to historical centre from the 1984 plan
 1998 strategic plan
o 1/100000 scale strategic plan was prepared with the coordination of Bursa Metropolitan Municipality.
o Metropolitan municipality boundary including Han District was defined as the central planning District.
 Central planning District Plan
o In 1999 1/25000 scale Environmental Master Plan was prepared
o Han District was defined as the trade centre
4-Plans relating to Hanlar District:
 1/25000 Environmental Master Plan
 1/1000 Bursa centre, Reyhan, Kayhan, Hanlar District Conservation Plan
5-Hanlar District conservation projects:
 Bursa culture map
o Map within the scale of city boundaries which shows cultural and historical sites
 Historical pedestrian axis
o Joining conservation plans with sub-centres on the pedestrian axis and coordinating this
o With stronger relations with other historical city Districts, the Hanlar District can be better understood as the centre
186
o Special project Districts in the historical city centre
o 1992 1/1000 Bursa centre, Reyhan, Kayhan, Hanlar District Conservation Plan (METU)
 Tuzhan and Nilüfer bazaar
 Kütahya han and neighboring stores
 Davutpaşa bath and surroundings
 Setbaşı stream recreation area
 Ayakkabıcılar bazaar
o Fidan han- Geyve Han protection and landscaping project
o Long bazaar façade arrangement
o Pirinç Han restoration
Project purposes,
 Strengthening valuable structures,
 Increasing their visibility,
 Clearing the additions caused by the pressures on land and the structures which are not compatible to the environment
 Arranging open spaces according to the needs of city life
187
APPENDIX F
SOME PHOTOS ABOUT BAZAARS IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD
Figure A.4.Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.5.Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
188
Figure A.6. Bakırcılar Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.7. Yorgancılar Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.8: Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
189
Figure A.9.Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.10.Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.11.Tradesman of Bazaar (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
190
Figure A.12. Shoe Bazaar in 1894 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.13 İbrikçiler Çarşısı in 1913 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.14. Ulucami and Pirinç Han in 1895 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
191
APPENDIX G
THE SECTORAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF ARTISANS AND
CRAFTSMEN IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD
Table A. 2. The sectoral distribution of major groups of artisans and craftsmen in the Ottoman period (Sakaoğlu ve Akbayar 1999, 254-265)
Mine Processing and Weapon Production
- Yaycılar
- Okçular
- Kurmalı Yaycılar
- Sadakçılar
- Bıçakçılar
- Demirciler
- Demir Tel Çekiciler
- Nalbantlar
- Dökümcüler
- Dökümcü Kalaycılar
- Sapancılar
- Topuzcular
- Kılıççılar
- Nalçacılar
- Mızrakçılar
- Şamdancılar
- Üzengiciler
Wood Processing
- Tornacılar
- Ahşap kakmacılar
- Kalafatçılar
- Doğramacılar
- Abanozcular
- Testereciler
- Serenciler
- Yelkenciler
- Pereme ve kayık yapımcıları
- Araba yapımcıları
- Sıra yapımcıları
- Kürsü yapımcıları
- Karyolacılar
- Sedyeciler
- Tabutçular
- Nalıncılar
- Semerciler
- Halatçılar
Construction Works
- Karataş Döşemecileri
- Kiremitçiler
- Camcılar
- Alçıcılar
- Horasan Harcı Yapanlar
- Kireççiler
- Sıvacılar
- Mermerciler
- Kerpiççiler
- Badanacılar
- Boyacılar
- Lağımcılar
- Kaldırımcılar
- Taş Yontucuları
Textile and Clothing
- Sorguççular
- Serpuşçular
- Nakışçılar
- Mendilciler
- Bukağıcılar
- Takkeciler
- Mintancılar
- Pamuk tarayıcılar
- Keçeciler
- Keçe yastıkçılar
- Keten bezciler
- İpekçiler
- Terziler
- Kapamacılar (hazır elbiseci)
- Sarıkçılar
- Çadırcılar
- Kaleçeciler
- Kürkçüler
192
Leather Processing
- Debbağlar
- Deri Boyacılar
- Saraçlar
- Pabuççular
- Çizmeciler
- Deri Tulumcular
- Parşömenciler
- Ciltçiler
- Kolancılar
- Eyerciler
- Yularcılar
- Kamçıcılar
- Meşinci ve sahtiyancılar
Food
- Kasaplar
- Fırıncılar
- Peksimetçiler
- Değirmenciler
- Güllaççılar
- Peynirciler
- Pastırmacılar
- Yoğurtçular
- Kebapçılar
- Sakatatçılar
- Bakkallar
- Yemişçiler
- Kahveciler
- Helvacılar
- Şekerciler
- Börekçiler
- Muhallebiciler
- Şerbetçiler
- Bozacılar
- Kadayıfçılar
- Aşçılar
- Paluzeciler
- Tuzcular
- Simitçiler
Herbalist’s trade
- Aktarlar
- Nişastacılar
- Macuncular
- Merhemciler
- Itriyatçılar
- Buhurcular
Jewellery
- Mücevherciler
- Elmastıraşçılar
- Yaldızcılar
- Kıymetli taş yontucuları
- Kezzapçılar
- Altın varakçılar
- Altın oymacılar
- Mühür kazıcılar
- Gümüşçüler
Household Goods
- Şişeciler
- Kutucular
- Kandilciler
- Zembilciler
- Sepetçiler
- Hasırcılar
- Kaşıkçılar
- Fincancılar
- Çömlekçiler
- Usturacılar
- Sabuncular
- Kalburcular
- Yorgancılar
- Döşekçiler
- İskemleciler
- Sandıkçılar
- Lüleciler
Books, Articles and Decorative Arts
- Kâğıtçılar
- Mürekkepçiler
- Kalemtıraşçılar
- Mukavvacılar
- Mühreciler
- Zamkçılar
- Hattatlar
- Ebrucular
- Mücellitler
- Divitçiler
- Müzehhepler
- Nakkaşlar
- Kâğıt oymacılar
- Kalemkârlar
The Others
- Pusulacılar
- Haritacılar
- Saatçiler
- Müzik aleti yapımcıları
- Çarşı ressamları
193
- Mumcular
- Makasçılar
- Hakkakler
- Kilitçiler
- Çilingirler
- Teraziciler
- Aynacılar
- Hırdavatçılar
- Sakalar
- Hamamcılar
- Berberler
- Hekimler
- Hamallar
194
APPENDIX H
SOME PHOTOS ABOUT BAZAARS TODAY
Figure A.15. Tuz Pazarı in 2006 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.16. Tuz Pazarı in 2006 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
195
Figure A.17. Kozahan enterence in 2006 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
Figure A.18. Yorgancılar Çarşısı in 2006 (Ramazan Tuncer Arşivi-Bursa Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odaları Birliği)
196
Figure A.19. Orhangazi Square in 2009 (Personal Archieve)
Figure A.20. Emir Han in 2009 (Personal Archieve)
Figure A.21. Havlucular Çarşısı in 2010 (Personal Archieve)
197
Figure A.22. Kapan Han in 2010 (Personal Archieve)
198
APPENDIX I
OWNERSHIP PATTERN OF BURSA HISTORICAL CITY CENTRE
OWNERSHIP PATTERN
OF BURSA HANLAR
DISTRICT
Cadastral Boundaries
Bursa Metropolitan
Municipality
Osmangazi
Municipality
State
Private
Foundation
NORTH
Prepared by:
Bursa Metropolitan Municipality
Figure A.23. Ownership Pattern of Bursa Historical City Centre
199
APPENDIX J
SOME DECISIONS OF HANS OF BURSA COUNCIL FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Surname, Name
:
Keleş Eriçok, Ayşegül
Nationality
:
Turkish (TC)
Date and Place of Birth
:
17.07.1979, Ankara
Marital Status
:
Married
Phone
:
+90 312 210 62 46
Fax
:
+90 312 210 79 65
e-mail

MS
Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Urbanization and Environmental Problems
2003
BS
Gazi University, Department of City and Regional Planning
2001
High School
Başkent Lisesi, Ankara
1995
WORK EXPERIENCE
Year
Place