707

TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF PLANS 7
LIST OF IMAGES 7
LIST OF SCHEMES 8
LIST OF MAPS 8
ABSTRACT 10
INTRODUCTION 11
CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACH TO
URBAN TRANSFORMATION
1.1. Definition of Urban Transformation and its scope 12
1.1.1. Concepts and Definitions as Subtitles of Urban Transformation 13
1.2. Development of Urban Transformation Process 14
1.3. What makes an area catalyst in context of Urban Transformation? 15
1.3.1. Historical Heritage Dimensions 17
1.3.1.1. Functional Shifting Process of Historical Urban Centers
And Renovation Approach 18
1.3.1.2. Evaluation of Historical Industrial Areas Concerning
Industrial Archeology 20
1.3.1.2.1. The Importance of Golden Horn Shipyards as an Industrial Heritage 22
1.3.2. Waterfront Development Dimensions 26
1.3.3. Uses of Heritage and Waterfront: Tourist Historic Dimensions 27
1.4. Conclusion 29
5
CHAPTER 2: THE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECTS AT THE FRINGE
OF GOLDEN HORN IN CONTEXT OF URBAN
TRANSFORMATION CATALYSTS
2.1. The History of Golden Horn and Spatial Usage Differentiations 30
2.1.1. The Location of Golden Horn, Physical Data and Development
Process throughout the History 32
2.1.1.1. Ports during Byzantium period 33
2.1.1.1.1. Port and Shipyard Complexes on the Northern Shore of Golden Horn 33
2.1.1.2. Ports during Ottoman period (Till 18th. Century) 34
2.1.1.2.1. Ottoman Imperial Arsenal: A Shipyard known as Tersane-i Amire 36
2.2. Golden Horn during the planning era of Istanbul 41
2.3. Analysis of Some Projects at the master plan of Golden Horn
in context of urban transformation catalysts 43
2.3.1. Galata and its historical environs’ regeneration 46
2.3.1.1. The History of Galata 46
2.3.2. Sütlüce Former Slaughterhouse as a Cultural Activity and
Congress Center 52
2.3.3. Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum 54
2.3.4. Rehabilitation of Feshane Former Ottoman Fez Factory 56
2.3.5. Cibali Former Tobacco Factory as a University 58
2.4. Conclusion 60
CHAPTER 3: THE CREATION OF A POST INDUSTRIAL PORTSCAPE
COMPARING WITH WORLDWIDE EXAMPLES
3.1. Shipyards and other water-industrial complex in worldwide:
Conservation and evaluation criteria 61
3.1.1. Arsenal- Venice 62
3.1.2. Albert Dock- Liverpool 66
3.1.3. Helsinki-Finland 68
3.1.3.1. The Past and Future of the Soumenlinna Galley Dock:
Idea of Living Museum 68
6
3.2. Modeling the Golden Horn Waterfront within the guidance
of the given examples 71
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 81
BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
VITA 87
7
LIST OF PLANS
Plan 1.1: Development on the Bosporus 29
Plan 2.1: Istanbul ports 32
Plan 2.2: Konstantinopole ports 33
Plan 2.3: Golden Horn piers 35
Plan 2.4: Reconstruction period of shipyard, 1600-1800-1900 39
Plan 2.5: General overview to Golden Horn, the existing and proposal projects
surround Golden Horn 45
Plan 2.6: Planning Decisions of Galata Tower and its environs 51
Plan 2.7: Sütlüce Former Slaughter 52
Plan 2.8: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum 54
Plan 3.1: The Arsenale building phases 63
Plan 3.2: Liverpool’s waterfront 66
Plan 3.3: Showing the four islands of the Suomenlinna sea fortress 68
Plan 3.4: Land use pattern and transportation network of near vicinity 72
Plan 3.5: The exaggerated network plan of Galata, intervolving with new path 73
Plan 3.6: Planning Concept of Shipyard and near vicinity 77
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1.1: Galata shipyard and Golden Horn from balloon 22
Image 1.2: Golden Horn Shipyard 23
Image 1.3: Golden Horn Shipyard 23
Image 1.4: Existing situation of Golden Horn Shipyard with Unkapani Bridge 24
Image 1.5: During the beginning of the century, shipyard 25
Image 2.1: Panorama of Golden Horn from Galata tower 31
Image 2.2: Arial view of Galata 36
Image 2.3: A storage in shipyard 37
Image 2.4: A winch in shipyard 37
Image 2.5: Golden Horn Shipyard, 1580(Cod. Vindob.8626) 38
Image 2.6: Golden Horn shipyard during 1870 38
Image 2.7: The first dry dock in the shipyard, 1798 40
8
Image 2.8: Shipyard and Divanhane 41
Image 2.9: General overview to Galata tower and its surrounding 46
Image 2.10: A glance to Galata from Byzantine times 50
Image 2.11: Sütlüce Cultural Center 53
Image 2.12: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum in 1900s 55
Image 2.13: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum today 55
Image 2.14: Feshane Ottoman fez factory 56
Image 2.15: Feshane Ottoman fez factory 57
Image 2.16: Unkapani Bridge from Cibali 59
Image 2.17: Cibali from Golden Horn 59
Image 2.18: Cibali Factory as a university 60
Image 3.1: The site of Thetis’s headquarters during the course of building work 64
Image 3.2: Some of the particular solutions adopted in the recover interventions 65
Image 3.3: Liverpool’s waterfront 67
Image 3.4: Suomenlinna Museum 69
Image 3.5: Aerial photo of Suomenlinna, central in the background 69
Image 3.6: The building of the dock basin in the 1760s 70
Image 3.7: Living museum, dock as show platform both for museum
and other activities 75
Image 3.8: The Uzunkemer Aqueduct 78
Image 3.9: Refik Saydam Street from Tarlabasi direction
glancing to Unkapani Bridge 78
Image 3.10: New bridge proposal from the same direction 78
Image 3.11: Shipyard’s isolated open spaces, and Unkapani Bridge
as an obstacle for pedestrians 79
Image 3.12: Reuse of open space and the connectivity with the other side 80
LIST OF SCHEMES
Scheme 1.1: Waterfront, historical heritage and uses 17
Scheme 1.2: Zoning the waterfront 27
9
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1.1: Location of Golden Horn Dockland on Istanbul orthophoto 22
Map 2.1: Konstantinopole yesterday and today 30
Map 2.2: Fourteen districts of Istanbul, Christoph Weigel, 1720 30
Map 2.3: Istanbul , Hellert, 1840 31
Map 2.4: Plan of Istanbul, De Nyaste, 1811 47
Map 2.5: Istanbul Metro, E Gavand, 1876 49
Map 3.1: The Venice Arsenal area 62
10
ABSTRACT
This thesis named as “A shipyard transformation as a catalyst in Golden Horn, Galata and its
historical environs’ regeneration process.” is hoped to identify the purposes of the new water
redevelopment in a particular urban historical area in Istanbul by defining and eloborating the
catalyst criterias
The shipyards of Istanbul is one of the most important complexes in the whole Ottoman
history of industry and technology.It stretchs continuously on a two-kilometer stripe along the
northern coast of the Golden Horn between Galata and Hasköy. Today, in the region of
Golden Horn- Azapkapi- Taskizak, there are wide building complexes which were
constructed in successive stages, often erasing the edificies of the earlier periods. In March
1995, the shipyards were declared to be a historical site.And the registrastion of every
individual shipyard area repairs and changes started. But today shipyards function will be
moved away. Consequently this thesis states the past, present condition and the future of
Golden Horn shipyard and eloborate it in terms of urban transformation criterias that will be
considered as the framework of this research in order to find out a new function for the
complex so as to be a start for the regeneration of the entire area and a reference source for
reusing activities and conservation.
The study is enriched by taking up the scanning and evaluation techniques as references; and
concluded with a proposal in the guide of these references.
Key data:
• Waterfront
• Industrial heritage
• Urban Sustainability
• Refunctioning
• Urban Transformation
• Shipyards
11
INTRODUCTION
Today, globalisation that has greater effect on cities has started a new era where economy has
a bigger role in the process of urbanism, urban change and transformation. Moreover cities
are subject to a new urban phenomeno because of the free capital roaming. Cities are
competing to get a share of the capital (land) shown as free on the global scale. Cities were
competing against each other for inward investment and were offering concessions and
inducements to attract businesses and industry, tourists and a skilled labor force. To be
different and create attractive facilities and therefore finding new free lands have become the
biggest problem of today’s cities. Education is the basic necessity. Consciousness should be
improved within the community and both sides of the case should do somethings to improve
those areas, because today the concept of management is becoming more important. For a
continuous urban development with the application of developed projects, both the society,
users and enterpreuter should act together and come to a consensus. Therefore, companies
and the government should create more opportunities to work together and the community
should contribute. Such a process will help the cities to globalize. However, this process
causes a conflict between the requirements of globalization and the cultural and historical
identity of the city.
A sustainable urban planning approach is accepted in today’s world in terms of the
development and conservation of the world cities. However In Turkey, physical planning still
is in charge since the traditional planning era.Urban transformation concept is one of the key
elements of planning issue. The aim of urban transformation activities is to make a positive
intervention into the fortune of the city. Urban transformation structure varies according the
planning decisions, environment, priorities in decision making and so on. Sometimes the
process starts from general to local and sometimes it happens opposite. (ERDEN, 2003)
First part of the thesis is in fact elaborating and giving the clear idea of this transformation
structure that will also assume and speculate this local transformation can be a catalyst for the
whole regeneration. Doing so the criterion will be explained in the first chapter.
Second chapter inquires the evaluation of the projects at the fringe of golden horn in context
of urban transformation catalysts. These projects will be elaborated in terms of the designated
criterion of urban transformation catalysts waterfront dimensions, historical heritage
dimensions, and uses of both of them. The chosen five projects are well fit to these three
criterions.
12
Third chapter is strengthening the set forth ideas within the world wide examples. Doing so,
the new proposal for Golden Horn shipyard will be presented at the end of this chapter.
Fourth chapter comprises the conclusion and the general overview of the thesis.
In this respect the purpose of this thesis, within the guidance of the determined framework,
envisioning the Golden Horn vicinity and elaborating the issue comparing with similar
worldwide examples and finally proposing a new idea for the area.
CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACH TO
URBAN TRANSFORMATION
1.1. Definition of Urban Transformation and its scope
The “built environment” is a means for human beings to develop and reproduce themselves
and their culture. It has an omnipresent and ubiquitous characteristic and consequently has a
complex content running in parallel with the development of social structure. It is a non-stop
organism reinvigorated itself continuously (MIMARIST MAGAZINE, 2004).
The principle of transformation projects includes the improvement of the spatial quality with
changing the derelict image and getting an economic regeneration by “breathing new life”
into such areas.
Urban transformation concept is a term that has a multiplicity of meaning; at present it
encompasses the creation of new jobs, the construction of new buildings, community support,
the restructuring of a city or a neighborhood in physical terms and cultural interventions
(GREED&ROBERTS, 1998).
It is a fact that transformation comprises social, cultural, politic, economic, philosophic and
etc. data and it is a process starts from micro and ends with macro scale. Transformation has
different shades of meaning, from simple renewal to a more imaginative interpretation as a
renaissance or rebirth with a higher sense of order.
Most urban design activity takes place within existing urban environments and involves the
revitalization of buildings and area through a combination of renovation and transformation.
13
1.1.1. Concepts and definitions as subtitles of Urban Transformation
Urban transformation classifies and defines these subtitles according to its different
application structure. Although these concepts vary such as gentrification, urban renewal,
urban revitalization, urban regeneration, urban rehabilitation, urban redevelopment, etc.,
meaning is more or less the same phenomenon, but pragmatically some of them can change
with the physical, social, cultural, philosophical and political reasons.
Gentrification
It is a socioeconomic development that brings and settles the high-income residents in some
part of the city in order to heal physical environment. Instead of the physical change, the
expectation is more related with social change in the beginning.
Urban renewal
Urban renovation in the first phase comprises demolishing the former urban zones and in the
second phase proposes the infrastructure and urban design projects. With all these it is aimed
to raise the quality of life standards with the new interventions.
Urban revitalization
Unsystematic demographic undulation, roaming of economic structure even with
programmable or not, underestimated or overestimated planning process, harm this fragile
social and economical structure and consequently cause the deterioration of physical
environment. In this regard urban revitalization is cleaning this deteriorated environment and
provides a new development.
Urban regeneration
A whole comprehensive and integrated vision in order to heal an area economically,
physically and socially. It provides the collaboration between public, private sectors and
participants. It supports the organizational structure for criticizing the political, economical,
environmental conditions to improve the urban space quality.
Urban rehabilitation
The main difference between urban rehabilitation and urban renewal is the conservation of the
area within the existing resident who will have the biggest benefit from this operation. It is a
harder method than urban renewal because the landowners are still living in their property.
14
The aim is to heal the interior and outdoor space that was corrupted. These interventions are
arranged without touching the main structure of the building.
Urban redevelopment
Whilst under the circumstances urban conservation and rehabilitation does not work, urban
redevelopment is the inevitable solution. Urban redevelopment process starts with making
urban redevelopment plan, continues with public research and considering the advices from
related institutions to bring economical liveliness.
1.2. The Development of Urban Transformation Process
Urban transformation can be taken as a process of change that can take place at any time in
any field of life depending on different factor. Within this process, all the actors that produce
things in certain ways and share city life play an important role.
Cities have quite a dynamic structure and they constantly change. “Cities are shaped by the
local , regional, national and international forces” (HEALEY & ILBERLY, 1990). Being a
dynamic system, the world economy, political organizations and social changes reflect cities
from differet aspects.
When these different reflections are observed in process, it is seen that these go back to the
time of the industrial revolution. After industrialism started the cities became more attractive
to the immigrants. Moreover, the growth in the demographic structure of the city is seen in
the land. John M. Levy has mentioned that the 19th century technology caused the population
to establish in one area, whereas in the 20th century technology caused just the opposite.
When the II World War and the system in England is considered, another perspective is seen.
Post war was the time spent to reconstruct the ruined buildings.
The changes made from 1950s until today resulted in great difference. What lies under these
changes is people moving one place to another in the city due to the changes in the production
process as well as the rapid increase in population. The period from World War II to 1970s is
called Fordism and resulted in social and culural changes through the city. During this
period, changes in production and technology and standardisation were observed. Due to
huge amount of production some urban areas were turned into industrial areas and there was a
great demand for those areas. This demand caused the expertise of the functions ( LEVY,
1997).
After World War II the economy became lively and there was a great amount of increase in
world trade. International trade has existed for thousands of years and with the help of new
15
means of transportation and communication tools the whole world was bound together in
order to create a global economy.
As the demand for cheap raw material increased the process of globalization has become
faster. The globalization of production, trade and financial systems changed the physical
feature of money, and it has become an electronic tool. This process resulted in the beginning
of services such as banking, services and tourism (AKALIN, 2003).
When we look at the applications in developed countries, it is clearly seen that while
developing urban planning they considered keeping the natural and cultural identity of the
city. Today it is impossible to differentiate the areas which are planned to be developed from
the ones to be preserved. In addition to recent changes, new approaches of integral and
sustainable planning of cultural, historical, social, economical and natural values have been
preffered. Talking about this, we can say that urban transformation is based on four criterian:
• To prevent the physical wreckage and provide consistency in historical sites in cities.
• To make economy more lively
• To increase the quality of urban life and to start action in cultural dynamics
• Provide contribution from all classes
Some of these aims have privilage at times. Depending on the problems and the potential of
the areas, the approach to transformation changes (ERDEN, 2003).
The most argumantitive issue had been the strategical planning in terms of theoretical way of
thinking about city planning during 1990s. Strategic planning focused on transportation,
environment, health issues within the urban and regional scale.
Companies that were trying to grow and fulfill the requirements of the era, decided to plan
strategically for their unclear future. They did this in a flexible way and tried to view it from
different angels. In coming years, this strategic planning was seen in urban planning. Like
the companies were, the cities tried to plan strategically in order to compete with developed
cities of the world. Evaluating the potential, weakness, opportunities and the dangers of an
area strategic planning is required.
Strategic planning is important when providing a unity between the area to be transformed
and the city. Especially when creating an urban project and applying it, the strategially
planning approach should be considered as the current planning.
While in 1990s the approaches of urban planning focused on urban tranformation and
strategic planning, in the Rio Summit Meeting in 1992 protecting the environment with an
international scale gained a new aspect. With the Rio Summit Meeting, the protection and the
development of the environment had a new dimension through a change with the “new
16
environmental agenda”. This new environmental agenda focused on especially “global and
natural effects” (GREED&ROBERTS, 1998).
To counteract the effects of decline new measures were introduced, such as Urban
Development Corporations.
1.3. What makes an area catalyst in context of Urban Transformation?
From recent years a new trend is formed under the title urban transformation. There exist new
projects forming from a unique architectural element or a design intervention and be a pioneer
in entire transformation. Marion Roberts describes this as design-led transformation.
Sometimes such as a new opera house or a local transformation node can be the starter of
entire planning decisions.
To clarify this new approach some strategic examples can be beneficial. The Grands Projets,
Paris. The Grands Projets in Paris fall into the category of flagship developments rather than
coordinated interventions into the urban structure. The Grands Projets are major architectural
projects, mostly based on cultural activities, which were built predominantly during President
Mitterand's period of administration. One or two are simply buildings, for example the Opera
House in the Place de la Bastille. Most famously, one of the earliest of the Projets, Piano and
Rogers' Centre Pompidou does form an addition to the city's spaces in the form of the lively
square in from of it. Although the building itself provides a major intrusion in terms of height,
scale and mass into the surrounding urban tissue. The Grands Projets did have an underlying
strategy, in the sense that more were concentrated in the impoverished east of Paris, rather
than in the more affluent west (GREED&ROBERTS, 1998).
These local interventions are generally shaped with some dimensions. In this part of the
thesis, these dimensions will be elaborated in order to identify these interventions that will
also guide the decisions in final proposal of former shipyard.
These interventions concentrate on the overlap between three elements in Scheme 1.1
17
Shipyard as
A catalyst
Scheme 2.1: Waterfront, historical heritage and uses
Inspired from: European port cities in Transition
Firstly, Historical heritage qualities; secondly, waterfront development potential of the area;
and thirdly, the potential uses of these two qualities.
Each of these is of increasing importance in its own right in cities worldwide, and each can
operate independently of the others. Heritage is not solely a waterfront phenomenon nor is it
used only within tourism; there are numerous examples of waterfronts that have been
redeveloped without recourse to heritage uses. Nevertheless, their combination is increasingly
visible as both one of the most typical settings for tourist-historic development and one of the
most promising area development strategies for waterfront revitalization
(HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
1.3.1. Historical Heritage Dimensions
The relationship between heritage tourism and waterfronts can be examined by posing two
quite different sets of fundamental questions resulting from two different approaches. The
first is from the heritage perspective, and asks 'What is the role of the waterfront in the touristhistoric
city? Above all, it seeks to examine the special physical and historical attributes of
waterfronts and their contribution to distinctive formal and functional elements within the
Historical Heritage
Waterfront
Development
Uses of
Heritage&Waterfront
18
tourist-historic city. The second approach is from a waterfront policy standpoint, and poses
the question 'What is the role of heritage-related activities within waterfront revitalization?'
This approach examines the functional associations that exist between these and other
activities, within the context of the aims and instruments of this particular type of area
development policy (HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
These two interrelations would be the key element for the future development. The more
dominant character in terms of the priorities for the area will have the more right to comment
on.
1.3.1.1. Functional Shifting Process of Historical Urban Centers and Renovation
Approach
One of the main reasons behind the transformation of cities is the change of control
mechanisms and functions because of the societal layering (OSMAY).
Problems of city centre can be varied as the economic transformation in city centers,
immigrations, cities getting worn out caused by improper use, poverty and social problems
result from this. Besides being worn out, city centers go through a change due to local,
national and global effects. As the population increases and more areas become a part of the
city, more and more urban transformation occurs.
Population in developing cities moves fom city centers to outer skirts of the city. Because of
all these facts, besides pysical problems such as cities becoming worn out because of
improper use, sea and air pollution, social problems like clash among different social classes
are observed.
From 1960s till today, great changes took place in city centres in terms of industrial
construction. Field of industrial activity decreased in city centres. With the changes in the
fields of industry and trade, economic activities related to these sectors decreased as well.
Industrial activities became more common in areas out of the city centres or countryside
(ERDEN, 2003).
In 1970 and 1980s many city centres became a ´core of finance, law and scientific studies
which preffered offices, entertainment and residence as places for establishment. In this
period, the factors that support this transformation show parallellism to criticisms made about
the urban settings. In short, the historical identity of the areas and areal connections that
could be made through this are seen as the main reason for attraction. Due to the
improvement in communication technology the rapid decrease in human action required for
19
work is another reason for this. In addition to all these,the recycle resulted from these factors
has played an important role in the popularity of these places.
After this period, the need to regenerate the cities physically, socially and economically in
particular has become a must due to the growth of cities. The period of renovation has started
to revive these centers (ERGUN, 2003).
The money received from the unearned income of the city and its becoming one of the most
important criteria for the private sector resulted in action in big cities. As the work fields
changed places and new economic sectors started becoming popular in cities, urban projects
became more popular. Within the city centre, development and conservation plans lost
popularity as the new trade sectors, centres, public places and the tendency to become an
internationally compatible city became popular. Also, small scale design and transformation
projects became more attractive in city management (ERDEN, 2003).
New approaches that attract more attention on trade economy of cities cause diffirent uses that
comprise economical functions.The regeneration, conservation and appraisal of current
historical pattern in city centers brought an understanding of contribution of both private
sectors and publicity (YIGITCANLAR, 2001).
Places like former industrial areas and portlands that lost function during urban renovations,
are becoming more popular places to build quality places.While the city management is
planning to have an urban image and prestige, the private sector, involved in this process
somehow, is expecting some unearned income.
This enthusiasm on both regeneration and renovation issues should not be a tool of the
unearned income sharing process. The strategic planning approach with this enthusiasm have
considered the social, economical and cultural components (ERDEN, 2003).
1.3.1.2. Evaluation of Historical Industrial Areas Concerning Industrial
Archeology
Warren argues that designing in an historic environment requires an 'awareness of historic
circumstances and a sense of responsibility to historic evidence.
J. Wahren
Over the last 20 years, the idea of adapting buildings that were used especially in industrial
fields into fields that do not serve industry has come up. Unlike physical renovation,
recycling starting with the existing city structure and spreading it to social, economical and
cultural fields’ wellness has become important.
Before analyzing the industrial archeology one has to think about the term historicism.
20
Historicism the stylistic intervention - may like every other intervention be full of or lacking
in other qualities such as inventiveness, accuracy, efficiency and it may vary in mood. It may
be sombre, it may be gay, it may be, wayward, capricious or exuberant. It may do its well or it
may fail. That is an emotive impact. There is in all creatures a response to 'certain signals
associated with the past. The smell of woodsmoke, hay fields or incense, the sounds of voices
from long ago, the travel down the road once familiar, the sight of a long-forgotten face, the
recall of childhood places: these things all arouse emotions derived from experience echoing
in the caverns of the mind. So if is that historicism plays powerfully on the emotions, lifting
the half remembered past into the focus of the present. Like any powerful tool it has its place
and an ethic in its use (WARREN&WORTHINGTON&TAYLOR, 1998).
What makes an industrial building attractive in terms putting new uses on them. Many
industrial complexes have a long-life spam. Their load bearing walls are solid and made to
carry massive floor loadings. Like other neglected buildings they can be prey to wet and dry
rot if damp gets in, but if well maintained many have a life of decades, even centuries, ahead
of them.
Secondly, they are extremely adaptable. The majority are laid out on an open plan and can be
repaired and upgraded for a range of uses, for light industrial and workshop use, for high-tech
offices and residential accommodation. Restored industrial buildings and industrial areas that
have been transformed can develop an enormous cachet. Flats in warehouses now sell at a
premium, not only in London's docklands, but in Liverpool's Albert Dock. Equally, there are
many exciting examples of milts and warehouses being adapted as nursery spaces for a whole
range of small businesses and individuals setting up on their own.Finally,in areas of major
dereliction industrial buildings and their surroundings offer a key opportunity for urban
regeneration on a very large scale ( BINNEY&MACHIN, 1990).
As is for all cultural inheritance, the concept of industrial inheritance was born under the
threat of destruction of industrial age. When industrialism that developed in 19th century in
Europe became a threat for the traditional face of the city, protests to save these traditional
values started. As the anti-industrial age started, the decentralization of industry from city
centers necessitated the need the use unused historical places as an important part of the city
life. That’s when the concept of ‘industrial inheritance’ was used.Till the mid 20th century,
industrial fields were seen as the symbols of bad working conditions and technology and that
they had to be terminated. However, in the last quarter of 20th century, the international
value of industrial inheritance in England was admitted and was regarded as a cultural
value.As is known, today big lands are valueable and therefore, industrial lands that are
21
pressed in the city centres are regarded as worthy due to the space they occupy. Industrial
archeology is defined as the evaluation of industrial buildings in their own area as well as
being recorded and even in some cases protection of them. The main aim of industrial
archeology is to appraise these buildings that are not used anymore as well as to benefit both
socially and eceonomically. What is left from deserted industrial buildings is a wreck that
needs to be renovated.Renovating and activating these buildings require a careful application
regarding to the needs of the environment as well as the cultural structure of the area
(KIRAC, 2001).
Carrying the production organisations of the past to the future as a “documentary of public
progress” will have a great effect on Turkey, where consuming is preffered to producing
and where science is isolated day by day. This effect will help people remember the
importance of enlightment because at the same time industrial heritage is the “historical
proof” of what man can do when mind is dominant rather than belief (EKINCI, 2001).
When renovating and protecting industrial heritage, benefit to the public should be
considered. When renovating and transforming, if the cultural value of such areas are ignored
and if this process is only considered as a physical protection and planning, some parts of the
project will definately be missed. Surely this will result in problems when projects are put
into reality as well as the consistency.
Our architects must produce buildings that are recognizable of our own age but with an
understanding and respect for history and context. If this involves some challenges to public
taste and convention, it may not be a bad thing. At the same time we should treat our historic
buildings with care and integrity, minimizing the changes they undergo to meet current needs,
and maximizing their authenticity. Then we may achieve a situation where our historic towns
continue to embrace buildings of different periods and styles (including our own) without
upsetting their essential characteristics; where new is distinguishable from old, and where
debate and controversy ensure that professional scrutiny and public interest are alive and well.
(WARREN&WORTHINGTON&TAYLOR, 1998).
Throughout the regeneration process for these areas, problems occur due to dense housing.
However, the dense housing demand offers reasonable opportunities. Especially when it
comes to building places for artistic and cultural events such places are considered (KIRAC,
2001).
Golden Horn can be an example to one of the places that used to be used as an industrial
area until recently and now projects are being made to use that area as a center of social
and cultural events. Among these industrial areas, Rehabilitation of Feshane Former
22
Textile Plant, Sütlüce slaughter house, Vehbi Koc industrial museum, Kadir Has
University, Silahtaraga Electric Factory will be eloborated in further chapters.
1.3.1.2.1. The Importance of Golden Horn Shipyards as an Industrial Heritage
The settlements by the water have always had a special place anywhere in the world. The
input of the water culture, the developments regarding to water, transportation on water and
other facilities can not be ignored. The shipyards that needed to use water were placed by the
water resources. However as bigger ships were built and the need for bigger production areas
became necessary due to great changes in technology, these shipyards became insufficient.
Map 2.1: Location of Golden Horn Dockland on Istanbul orthophoto
Therefore, nearly all the shipyards in the world have lost their importance due to the
development of technology. The shipyards that would meet the requirements are also built by
water but away from the city center. Moreover, due to reasonable prices and services from
Image 1.1: Galata shipyard and Golden Horn from balloon Source: Istanbul Dergisi
23
3rd world countries, many shipyards in Europe are being closed down without even being
renovated or moved.
The shipyards that were built away from city centres, are now in the middle of the cities .
Thanks to the evacuation of the old and unused shipyards, there are many unused and
valuable areas by water and in important parts of the city. This case is seen in cities like
London, Liverpool, Amsterdam, Anrvverp, Oslo, Lübeck, Venice, Barcelona and many others
and solutions are being sought.
Besides places mentioned above, Istanbul Golden Horn shipyards, although they can fulfill
the needs of the improving technology, is in danger of becoming obsolete. With a decision
made on April 18, 2000 by the privatisation committee, Golden Horn shipyard was closed and
the land of 69.000 m2 of Golden Horn shipyard was transferred to the Institute of Sea
Sciences and Management of İstanbul University and a land of 72.000 m2. It was decided to
to be used as a Police Academy on the behalf of Istanbul Municapility. The immensity of the
land that is to be used again including Taskızak shipyard is big and it is placed on a very
crucial area. When the importance of the place and the technological architectural value of
the land is considered, the difficulty of the problem will be even more obvious (MIMARIST
MAGAZINE, 2001).
Image 1.2: Golden Horn Shipyard Image 1.3:Golden Horn Shipyard
Source: Dünden bugüne Halic
Golden Horn shipyards were established in the second half of the 15th century by Fatih Sultan
Mehmet at the north shore of Golden Horn .Ship’s construction process beginning in the 15th
century in parts of shipyards had been prolonged in dry docks and stone shipways that were
built in 18th century and for the purposes of advancing technology and increasing demands it
has achieved today by expending and developing. Shipyards provide information on ship’s
construction and maintenance as well together with they are the most important documents of
shipping history and technologic advancement. With Its three large dry docks, stone
24
shipways, interesting docking techniques and original ground fireside it is an area that is
giving information on technical issues on the site (KOKSAL, 1996).
In the industrialization period of Ottoman Empire, installations, experts and production
techniques that had been brought generally from European countries were used in building of
factories, and installation and operation of the machines. Today, it is possible to see the
intensity of influence and support of Europe while Turkey’s industrial archeology is being
researched. On the other hand, there are original techniques in shipyards. Simultaneously with
their own advancements, either shipyard has contributed and effected the development of the
district where they have been located or they have caused new structuring. The history and
campus of the line spanning from Kasımpasa to Haskoy may not be considered without
shipyards.
Image 1.4: Existing situation of Golden Horn Shipyard with Unkapani Bridge
Photographed by: A. Kaan Özgün
Not only for the said region, shipyards also important for Istanbul and Turkey since they are
the one of the rare industrial protection areas surviving still. Even, it is the rare industrial
protection area of which installations have been protected completely. With its architectural
accumulation and historic permanency, there is no other shipyard around the world having
this sizes and quality. In the light of the examples taken from the abroad, it is an undeniable
fact that the most successful way to protect a building or an award is sustaining its original
works, and regular maintenance and repair said in protection and new utilization suggestions
for Golden Horn shipyards. However, still resisting in spite of their 5.5 century past,
shipyards of Istanbul has no such a chance. Governments have preferred making contribution
to city culture by providing those shipyards to be opened to the public and to be the venues of
cultural and artistic activities as almost a joint resolution but free from each other for the
shipyards stated above. Although, we are also cut off from all other countries at this point.
New functions such as “police academy” are deemed suitable for these unique shipyards with
respect to historic and technologic process, and not application of those functions since 18th
25
April 2000 when the decision was made brings different questions to the minds and makes the
situation blurred (KOKSAL, 2001).
It is necessary to present this area having three large dry docks, stone shipways, workshops,
technical units and a special characteristic such as coast to Golden Horn, to the daily life of
the city by using it for the good of the commonwealth and with recreation areas. In a city like
Istanbul where contact with the sea is very dense, sea – city relation has weaken and started to
get lost. The new function decision to be made for the shipyards, might provide renewing
and/or reestablishment of city center – sea relation by strengthening this relation that has
regressed until today.
1.3.2. Waterfront Development Dimensions
Mann, in his review of river cities, has explained this fascination and has asserted that "more
than any other catalyst, riversides hold the greatest hope for beginning a revival of
confidence in the urban physical environment" (1973: 20).
The principal purposes of waterfront redevelopment include the achievement of public access
to waterfront, improvement to the image of derelict waterfront areas, and the achievement of
economic regeneration by "breathing new life" into such areas. Flowing from the strategies to
improve the economic viability of the waterfront areas are such sub strategies as the
achievement of worthwhile usage of heritage buildings the strategy need not be focused so
narrowly (CRAIG&STEPHEN&FAGENCE&MICHAEL, 1995).
Closer examination often reveals interplay between historic and contemporary elements.
Because the waterfront is itself an historic resource reclaimed for public access, one could
argue that many new leisure amenities locating there are in fact historic ancillaries and part of
what we shall term the 'historic city'. In this regard, many waterfronts worldwide stage
Image 1.5: During the beginning of the century, shipyard Source: Istanbul ansiklopedisi
26
summer festivities which attract people by the historic associations of water
(HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
The main characteristic of waterfront is the interface of land and water. Accessibility is one of
the attribute that enriches this interface in context of tourist-historic development. Secondly
environmental amenities as well as visual relationship between land and water, some
attraction points welcome the tourists, thirdly particular types of activities like bridges, boats,
ferries, pier, railroads etc. and finally past identity association that complement to former
industrial remains.
The most usual case is that the waterfront provides opportunities not available elsewhere with
which those leisure-related activities may flourish and be enhanced. Thus, the use of
waterfront areas for leisure, recreation, and tourism activities is opportunistic more often than
it is predetermined.
The motivations to improve the image of waterfront, is related with the new development
opportunities to old fashion ,non-used plants and other commercial practices, bringing the
public back to waterfront by providing facilities and amenities which have public interest and
rehabilitating the built fabric.
The general challenge confronting waterfront redevelopment is to discover the appropriate
mix of uses and the means to satisfactorily achieve harmonious balance between the activities
and aspirations of the client group or constituencies There is a wealth of evidence that
integrating leisure related uses in schemes of waterfront redevelopment provides a balance to
the overall concept, in some cases creating a new catalyst for investor and user attention In the
modern city and in the redevelopment of urban waterfront districts within modern cities, the
integration of leisure, recreation, and tourism components is becoming more a matter of core
concern (CRAIG&STEPHEN&FAGENCE&MICHAEL, 1995).
Scheme 1.2: Zoning the waterfront Source: European port cities in Transition
27
1.3.3. Uses of Heritage and Waterfront
One of the consistent elements of the strategies of waterfront economic regeneration has been
the advantage taken of rehabilitating heritage buildings. In waterfront locations, the
opportunities have been taken up with various maritime buildings (warehouses), military
buildings (armaments stores), navigational buildings (lighthouses, port offices), and port
installations (dockyards, dry docks, wharves, and equipment). Such buildings represent a
significant stock, which, with initiative can be rendered suitable for modern usage for
accommodation, commercial storage, retailing, entertainment, and cultural purposes. The
restoration, refurbishment, and revitalization of buildings and sites have involved a significant
change of use and improvements to infrastructure, utility services, and transport facilities
(CRAIG&STEPHEN&FAGENCE&MICHAEL, 1995).
The ingredients of success may differ according to the peculiar circumstances of any scheme;
however, the important elements may be considered to include a judicious mix of compatible
commercial uses, the sympathetic treatment of heritage buildings to meet new commercial
challenges, the adoption of a consistent commercial and aesthetic ambience (particularly
intermixing heritage and new buildings), the successful pedestrian linkage of the waterfront to
nearby trafficked public areas, and the incorporation of leisure and commercial amenities
(CRAIG&STEPHEN&FAGENCE&MICHAEL, 1995).
In summary, four overlapping functions of tourist-historicity can be identified in the cases
considered below, namely:
Heritage resources can support a major heritage industry in its own right: a commercial
activity selling the commodified past as part of a package of leisure products.
It can be a means of attracting ancillary demand for facilities that are principally serving other
non-leisure related functions. Such extra demand may not be the reason for the establishment
of these activities but may render them profitable. It can be valued as a means of animating an
area through the presence of people and activities which, although uneconomic in themselves,
nevertheless indirectly contribute to the economic viability of other activities through the
stimulation of a desirable atmosphere. In this respect, leisure facilities have the valued
attribute of being effective outside the opening hours of many other commercial activities.
Finally, all tourism is heavily dependent upon the generation and promotion of particular
place images. The place image is supporting heritage and cultural tourism may, in turn, be
valued for their beneficial impacts upon other unrelated activities, such as amenity-sensitive
28
white collar employers, or, more broadly, for their support for civic consciousness and selfconfidence
(HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
Aside from the other models in world wide, tourist historic waterfront and commercial port
are located on a single node unlike Istanbul. These different nodes spread along the Bosporus
and Golden Horn.
Golden Horn and the development along the golden horn is one of the important parts of this
linear development of heritage waterfront use.
1.3.4. Conclusion
The degree to which a port waterfront is ceded to leisure uses, whether heritage based or not,
reflects the relative economic strengths of the port function on the one side and the touristhistoric
function on the other, with the further possibility of intervention by an alternative
dominant adaptive re-use (HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
The potent attraction of the artifacts of war, and the symbolic importance of its historical
associations, endow naval bases with an enormous potential heritage value.
The tourist-historic dimension is the mainspring of waterfront leisure. The creation of the
heritage product for recreational markets from the collective memory of the past is just one
personalized consumer product among many others. Current interest in the concept of the
post-modern city perceives this as dominated by variety, eclecticism, personalized
consumption, place distinction and high quality environments. The tourist-historic waterfront
has most of these characteristics and could therefore be regarded as archetypal post-modern.
Plan 1.1: Development on the Bosporus Source: European port cities in Transition
29
Without prejudice to these issues, the emergence of the tourist-historic waterfront has will
implications for the city and urban society, in an era of change and development
(HOYLE&PINDER, 1992).
This approach is going to be a base of the projects at the fringe of Golden Horn in the further
chapter.
PART 2: THE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECTS AT THE FRINGE OF
GOLDEN HORN IN CONTEXT OF URBAN TRANSFORMATION
CATALYSTS.
2.1. The History of Golden Horn and Spatial Usage Differentiations
Istanbul is the creation not only of its unique history but of its magnificent site. It is a city
created and given life by the sea. It witnessed several civilizations in its history. These
civilizations had a big role to shape the city. Latifi, a 16th century Turkish poet, writes: “It lies
where the Black Sea and the Mediterranean meet and between two rivers, an outstanding,
beautiful, immense and famous city, built like paradise. Lamartine says “God and man, nature
and art cooperated to create this the most beautiful and incomparable landscape ever to be
seen in this world.
The rolling hills of the eastern Balkans end in a promontory at the meeting point of the
Bosporus, the Golden Horn and the Propontis. The Keras (Golden Horn), a natural inlet of 7.5
km (about 4.5 miles) long is the best harbor in the entire Northern Aegean Sea (KUBAN,
1996).
Map 2.1: Konstantinopole yesterday and today Source:ippotis@aurora.eexi.gr
30
We may search the principal factors under grounding on the history of Byzantine and Galata
to such old times, in their geographical structure that was convenient to trade resulted from
position of Golden Horn which was a protected port (KOCYIGIT, 2002).
Image 2.1: Panorama of Golden Horn from Galata tower Source: Galata: a guide to Istanbul’s Old Genoese
Quarter.
In addition to this, strategic importance of Golden Horn is increased since it bore the traces of
many period of the history, it had a cultural and ethnical variety and the most important one it
was located at the center of the city of Istanbul, it was connecting Galata and historic
peninsula each other.
In the 2nd century B.C., Polibios described that clearly in his world history written:
“Byzantines are the people living in the most convenient sea side with respect to security and
welfare.” Thus, the city was an important port and place to transfer the loads from the
beginning. This role determined the development of the city either its weight decreased or
increased for centuries (WEINER, 1998).
Map 2.2: Fourteen districts of Istanbul, Christoph Weigel, 1720 Source: Maps of Istanbul
31
Additionally its function as a gullet, port and sea way, Golden Horn had to take responsibility
of functions of the street since it was important as city “streets”. Furthermore, there were very
few vehicle roads in the city and thus almost no vehicle was used in transportation. Porters
and load animals were the most important carriers in the city for the centuries. Therefore, it
isn’t surprising that preferring sea transport which takes time but comfortable and usually
faster instead of difficult roads (WEINER, 1998).
2.1.1. The Location of Golden Horn, Physical Data and Development Process
throughout the History
Golden Horn is a sea recession that interfere the land for 7.5 km .The Golden Horn is
approximately 300 meters wide with a depth sufficient to allow big ships to enter for a stretch
of 4km. Two small rivers, the Kydaris (Alibeyköy Creek) and the Barbyzes (Kagithane
Creek) discharge their waters into the Golden Horn. It occupies 25 million square meter area.
The deepest point is 40 meter in between Galata and Atatürk Bridge, and the depth is getting
shallow towards the inner part because of the wastes. On the northern shore of the Golden
Horn, at the entrance to the harbor, lies a plateau running down to the shores with rather steep
shores. The city of Sykai (later known as Pera- Galata) was founded on the slopes facing the
promontory on which Byzantium was founded.
Map 2.3: Istanbul , Hellert, 1840 Source: Maps of Istanbul
32
As Clavijo says, “it was the safest and finest harbor in the whole world. The Bosporus, the 31
km. (19.3 miles) long channel between Asia and Europe has been, since Antiquity, renowned
for its fairy landscape, wooded hills, narrow valleys, streams and small harbors. At the
entrance of the Black Sea, the channel is 3.6km at the Marmara entrance 1.7km wide. Its
narrowest point (698m) is between the two Turkish castles in mid Bosporus (Anadoluhisari-
Rumelihisari) (KUBAN, 1996).
2.1.1.1. Ports during Byzantium Period
During the foundation of the city by I. Constantinus (334) there had been probably an
enormous economical growth thus despite the development of sea transportation, the
condition of the ports and the functions did not change a lot.
These ports were well secured by surrounded city walls and breakwaters. They used as trade
and transportation center until the first half of 4.century.
Neorion(sirkeci) had the shipyard functions until it was occupied by Genoese. Neorian name
was given to the gate afterwards. P. Gilles mentioned three emptiness signify a possible
presence of a port nearby the Kinegeon (Balat) gate (WEINER, 1998).
Plan 2.1: Istanbul ports Source: Istanbul periodicals
33
2.1.1.1.1. Port and Shipyard Complexes on the Northern Shore of Golden Horn
In the first years following the establishment of Konstantinopolis, the old shipyard complexes
located at the western of Neorion (Old Exarstysis in today’s Eminönü district) ought to be
used for a period of time, but short after, a need to construction of a bigger navy and
complexes (construction and installation places, slip hangars and possibly ship houses) to
shelter the navy because of the military requirements ought to be born. For this reason, it is in
the Kasımpasa bay which was under the Pagai across Golden Horn and wider in the past (the
region in which Tersane-i amire established in Ottoman period).
P. Gilles said that “The all shore surrounding Galata is appropriate to be a port and allows
ships to close to the land. A space in which there were many houses belonging to the
merchants, shops, drinking house, besides there were empty spaces for ships to unload, were
left between city walls and bay.”
With the new complexes, the first small scaled shipyard vetus tersana was established for
trade and port activities in 1303 (WEINER, 1998).
2.1.1.2. Port during Ottoman Period (Till 18th. Century)
The new period that opened in the history of the city by the conquest of Konstantinapolis in
1453’s May, showed itself in port and port activities as it was in other fields of city life. In the
Plan 2.2: Konstantinopole ports Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
34
last period of Byzantine, Golden Horn became a wide trade port of which entrance may be
closed when a war broke out and which was used for different commercial transportation,
besides, at the southern part of the city there was Kontoskalion port of which surroundings
had been strengthened for the navy. This bay was protected from south and north winds that
often turned storm in Istanbul by two hills rising form its two sides.
The new coming ships anchored first in front of Golden Horn and they only could close to the
land for loading and unloading. The shore in Golden Horn was usually deepen very
perpendicularly, there was an opportunity to transfer the goods from the ship to the land
directly over the simple wooden beams for even the ships having more than 2 m floating level
and big trade ships of the following centuries. Shore regions at the two side of the entrance of
Golden Horn served for port activities, on the other hand, at the upper side of Golden Horn
there were waterside houses placed along the shore even on the poles (WEINER, 1998).
From the mid Byzantine period, the entire Golden Horn was considered as the port of the city,
but for trading houses and main port functions, that is loading and unloading of the ships,
storing of the goods, only some specific shores were used.
If the function of each wharf in Byzantine period was certain, there were fixed wharfs for hips
coming from specific ports or some certain good groups in the shores longing 11 – 12
kilometers between Istanbul and Pera in the Ottoman period.
Plan 2.3: Golden Horn piers Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
Limani
35
Topographic sequence
1. Yalı Köşkü Pier
2. Sirkeci Pier
3. Meydan ve Vezir Pier
4. Bahçekapı Pier
5. Üsküdar Pier
6. Gümrük Pier
7. Balikpazari Pier
8. Hasır Pier
9. Limon Pier
10. Yemiş Pier
11. Çardak Pier
12. Odun Pier
13. Bokluk Pier
14. Unkapanı Pier
15. Tüfekhane Pier
16. Balıkhane Pier
17. Cibalikapi Pier
18. Ayakapı Pier
19. Yenikapı Pier
20. Balat Pier
21. Ayvansaray Pier
22. Defterdar Pier
23. Balçık Pier
24. Eyüp Pier
25. Kâğıthane Pier
26. Karaağaç Pier
27. Sütlüce Pier
28. Piripaşa Pier
29. Hasköy Pier
30. Kasımpaşa Pier
31. Meyit Pier
32. Azapkapı Pier
33. Funda Pier
34. Kürekçikapı Pier
35. Yağkapanı Pier
36. Balıkpazan Pier
37. Karaköy Pier
38. Mumhane Pier
39. Kîreçkapı Pier
40. Egrikapı Pier
41. Debbağhane and
Sirkeci Pier
42. Tophane Pier
43. Çavuşbaşı Pier
44. Salıpazari Pier
45. Hamallar Pier
46. Fındıklı Pier
47. Kabataş pier
Shores of Golden Horn were covered with simple workshops, artless wooden houses and
water side houses. Some parts of the old sea walls could be seen behind them in patches.
But the factor that determined the silhouette of the wide port bay were the consequent ship
parts of Tersane-i Amire, that is the Big Ottoman Shipyard, together with the navy ships in
front of the shipyard (WEINER, 1998).
2.1.1.2.1. Ottoman Imperial Arsenal: A Shipyard known as Tersane-i Amire
The Ottoman Imperial Arsenal was the central base of the Ottoman Navy, comprised of
docks, administrative buildings, man stores for ammunition and timber, workshops, a
prison and a mosque, was the largest and most active of the arsenals in the Mediterranean.
It benefited the information and experience of the Venice maritime.
There were two categories of personnel in the Imperial Arsenal, its administrators (ricals)
and artisans. The emin, kethuda and aga of the Arsenal and those in charge of ship building
and equipment formed the first category, (the rical). The officers (azabs) and ship captains,
caulkers, oars makers, blacksmiths, repairmen, oakum-workers, pulley-makers and
bombardiers formed the second category (BOSTAN, 1992)
36
It is understood that Fatih saw the value and necessity of having a navy with respect to his
future plans, and he tried to keep all ship masters and carpenters in the city after conquest.
Although opportunity to construct a new ship in Istanbul at that time was very limited, in
the following years, the navy had important role in Sinop and Trabzon (1461), Midilli and
Eflak (1462) campaigns and then, in the war with Venice lasted in 16 years (1463-1479)
and conquest of Ceneviz lands in Kırım (1475). The places used for this were the small
shipyard at the western side of Pera and old Byzantine shipyard in Kontoskalion (Kadirga
Port) which was widened by the emperor in the winter of 1462-63 (WEINER, 1998).
Image 2.2: Arial view of Galata Source: Conference about a new urban planning approach for
the regeneration of a historical area from Istanbul`s Central
Business District
Image 2.3: A storage in shipyard Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
37
Following the conquest of Istanbul by Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Kadirga Port was used as a
shipyard for a period of time and then the first Galata shipyard which was consisting of a
few parts in Aynalikavak district of Golden Horn. Among the outbuildings of this
shipyard, there were only a small mosque and public sitting place. Carpenters, shipmen and
artists from the costal parts of the Empire were brought to Istanbul in order to new
shipyard may sustain its activities.
In the pictures belonging to the late 15th century, there were galleys being built or repaired
on the land other than anchored ones in front of Kasimpasa bay upper side of Galata walls,
and those galleys and galleons were seen in Golden Horn. We could see from that Galata
shipyard started to develop as a center (BOSTAN, 1992).
After the successor of Bayezid, Selim the 1st (1512-16) took the head, he gave an order to
establishment of larger shipyards each having 100 parts and the capacity of 200 galleys in
Gallipolis and Istanbul by accelerating the enlarge navy in order to achieve his goals.
In 1513-14’s winter, construction of the shipyard, later known as Tersane-i Amire, of new
navy in the bay located at the west of Galata which deeper recessed to the land at that time,
were started. This facility turned an industrial complex that was remarkable for the time in
a short period of time. According to what Bailo Antonio Giustiniani of Venice was written
the first four parts were completed in 1513’s fall after the graveyard right up there the
slope was removed to the new mass graveyard. In 1514’s spring, 50, at the end of its
summer 100 parts were ready. Parts of the shipyard were only covered with wooden and
tile and there were small cellars to keep equipments of each galleys.
Image 2.4: A winch in shipyard Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
38
Sizes of the buildings varied from 5.5-7 meters and heights varied from 20-40 meters. It
was used as a storage place for other equipments at the same time. A big fire in 1547
destroyed some parts of the shipyard and jail called Banyol at the west, but repaired
immediately, all complex were covered by high stone walls in 1547.
The number of skilled worker working in the shipyard was between 86-88 in 1528-30. P.
Contarini talked about 800 carpenters and repairmen parts of them were captives in 1583.
G. Moro wrote that there were 600 repairmen who were guardians usually in 1592.
Besides, from time to time, craftsmen in Galata had been given order (WEINER, 1998).
In 1707, Grand Vizier Corlulu Ali Pasha had a mosque built in the center of the shipyard,
that mosque would be known as Kisla mosque later on. P. Pococke stated that there were
11 ships in Tersane-i Amire in his visit at the beginning of 1740’s summer; he said the
biggest ship had about 56 meters length and the power of 110 guns and it was equal with
modern British ships (WEINER, 1998).
Image 2.5: Golden Horn Shipyard, 1580(Cod. Vindob.8626) Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul
Limani
Image 2.6: Golden Horn shipyard during 1870 Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
39
To the end of 1700s, the first dry dock was established within the frame of modernizing
works. The dock extended almost double of its sizes is still active today (WEINER, 1998).
In 1802, following the demolition of old shipyard walls forming barrier and building on the
next shore, the shipyard had the areas that it needed urgently for new enlargements.
Opening the doors of the dock and launching the new built ships are important events for
the emperor and people of palace. One of the big building projects in the shipyard was a
large hangar building established on the ship maintenance pool to the end of the 19th
century. This building determined the last appearance of Tersane-i Amire with its
chimneys smoking black, a few old clerks, few floored many manufacturing buildings and
cellars (WEINER, 1998).
Construction of the fixed bridges, increasing traffic in the port and abundance of the ships
anchored around the outer port region, entrance to the shipyard from the sea was getting
difficult during 19th century, while the usable area in the shipyard was started to be
insufficient, modernizing the complex of the shipyard was being considered from the
Plan 2.4: Reconstruction period of shipyard, 1600-1800-1900
Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
40
beginning of the 20th century and it was planned that to move all complex of the shipyard
from Golden Horn to another place in Izmit gulf. As a result of the screening in 1913,
shipyard would be built up and operated by an English company, Armstrong, in a modern
way but the war broke out in 1914 prevented it. However, plans on moving of the navy
shipyard were considered again after the 1st World War ended. The new base of the
Turkish navy has been in Izmit, Golcuk since 1925 with all necessary complexes
(WEINER, 1998).
As the land of the empire was so close with the sea, ship’s construction was attempted
wherever needed. With the exception of Istanbul shipyard, Ottomans had shipyards in
Black Sea, Aegean Sea, Mediterranean, and Red Sea, Basra Gulf and Tuna and Firat rivers
as well. In 16th century, Istanbul shipyard (Tersane-i Amire) which was one of the
towering shipyards in the world had shown entirety with respect to its ship’s construction
clerks, storages, workshops, subsidies of the shipping industry, social facilities such as
mosque and fountain and dungeon. In the Ottoman, there were some other shipyards
except Tersane-i Amire, in Gallipolis, Sinop, Izmit, Suveysh, Basra, Birecik, Ruscuk,
Samsun, Kefken depending on the Tersane-i Amire, as a natural result of its lands
(BOSTAN, 1992).
Image 2.7: The first dry dock in the shipyard, 1798 Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
41
2.2. Golden Horn during the planning era of Istanbul
Istanbul has, rightfully, held the title of world city, since the 4th century of our era. No
great transformation is detectable in the life style/physical fabric or spatial patterns of the
city during the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. But, in the 18th and, particularly, in the
19th century, fundamental changes occurred in its life style and physical structure. Istanbul
had begun its battle with the Industrial age (ORTAYLI, 1997).
Golden Horn throughout the history witnessed the exploitation of industrial amenities in
terms of transportation and other economical reasons. The contamination in Golden Horn
actually started in Ottoman era. Industrial civilization had always been an obsession of
Ottoman sultans as well without hesitation they demolished their own architectural venues.
A paper factory in the quarter of Kagithane and an engineering school in the same quarter
and, outside the city, modem barracks (Selimiye) began to be constructed. A gunpowder
factory and dockyards were built on the Golden Horn. This baroque era industry produced
the first pollution that damaged the natural environment and ancient architectural fabric of
Istanbul (ORTAYLI, 1997).
The real phenomenon of the 18th century was the filling up of the large city by throngs of
men living on their own, who had left their families in Anatolia, and even of whole
families. Due to this fact, the districts of wholesale squalor where the men lived in the
working districts were the first signs of a squatter occupation movement that would occur
in the quarters of Eyup and Kasimpasa on the Golden Horn and Üsküdar on the Asian side
of the Bosporus. The basic change in the spatial structure, that is, the birth of suburbs and
small squatter and slum districts, was a process that accompanied modernization in the
19th century.
Image 2.8: Shipyard and Divanhane Source: Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani
42
Further, Balat, Fener and Hasköy on the shores of the Golden Horn turned into slums,
which continue unchanged today. The area from that time onwards has been known as a
poverty-stricken neighborhood, which took form in the environs of semi-industrial
installations, like the shipyard and artisan workshops. Outside the city limits,
slaughterhouses and small workshops came into existence. An increase in such facilities
also increased on the shores of the Golden Horn. This created the first problems of
environmental pollution in Golden Horn.
After 1950s Golden Horn was full of factories, workshops and other amenities that were
exploiting the benefit of Golden Horn. Shipyard industry was 1/5th of entire industry, and
followings are iron and steel industry and chemistry. 200000 tons of waste were thrown
out daily according the statistical data of past (IBSB, 1988)
As a result of fast industrialization, Golden Horn started to loose its characteristic
throughout the time. This spontaneous growing of industrialization caused to radical
changes in the structure of Golden Horn. After the republic there had been several master
plans for Golden Horn that encourages these decisions. After 1980s worldwide dynamics
started to designate new approaches. It was recognized that Golden Horn had been a
swamp area, as well decentralization of industry have appeared. Industry along Golden
Horn moved to new determined spots outside of the city to some new peripheries. Under
the decentralization process there had been a cleaning along waterfront even some of the
historical structures were demolished inside this process. The main purpose of 1985
planning decision about Golden Horn was moving the all structures without questioning
the identities and historical values, and creating a green belt along the water. With these
operation on one hand Golden Horn had been reclaiming its own nature and succeeded in
getting it on the other hand it had been loosing some properties.
The recent master plan of Golden Horn reclaim the universal cultural, historical values as
well throughout the history it has a cultural harbor characteristic. Regarding the aim and
purpose of the master plan, there are some projects done or proposed. Hereby with the next
title it will be elaborated.
43
2.3. Analysis of Some Projects at the master plan of Golden Horn in context of
urban transformation catalysts
Golden Horn, that is under the effects of global dynamics, in the creation or search of new
places in order to give a new image to the city and to have a place among world’s cities
performed by city managements, has become the target of lots of project because of its
historic identity and development potentials.
In the report of 1/50.000 scaled main city plan report; Golden Horn region which has
importance since its historic value and geographical position has defined as the region to
be protected including a structure having its natural and cultural structure, green areas and
cultural purposed usages.
Istanbul Grand City Municipality has declared Golden Horn as a vast culture park, a
culture bay that must be protected completely and gains its past identity. However, there
isn’t any plan or law that described Golden Horn as an entire and/or a protection area. In
the Golden Horn region where there isn’t a plan or legal guarantee that is the warranty of
the entirety, projects that have been developed for the regions such as Zeyrek, Fener, Balat
having registered or unregistered cultural inheritance and that have been taken under
protection within UNESCO architectural inheritance, may not be integrated with each
other.
Istanbul Grand City Municipality defining a “culture bay” upper identity for Golden Horn
has an important role on producing projects for this region.
While the selection of the projects that would take place in the thesis, is made, besides its
function as catalysts in urban transformation constituting the main base of the thesis, it is
important that it hosted the industry in the past as well. On the other hand, selection of the
transformation of Galata and surroundings is connected with closeness of the shipyard to
the Galata Region and possibility of creating an effectual synergy in transformation of
Galata of the new function to be suggested.
In this connection, in the direction of the hypothesis and purpose that the thesis has
displayed, five projects that are considered to make contribution to transformation of
Golden Horn and its surroundings, have been selected. These five projects seem they have
the criterions that being a catalyst in urban transformation. Four of them are industrial
transformation projects. Golden Horn shipyards have the power to create effect on urban
transformation and further importantly they have a more special importance as their
closeness to Galata. Regeneration project of Galata is going to be searched separately from
44
the other projects, within the scope of its historic change and the projects that are
considered to be applied.
From the hypothesis and aim of the thesis:
• Historical Heritage Quality
• Waterfront Quality
• Efficient Uses Of These Two Qualities
will be experimented for both of the projects in order to identify the catalyst criterion.
Within the guidance of hypothesis and aim of the thesis, the projects for the redevelopment
of Golden Horn are below
• Galata and its historical environs’ regeneration
• Sütlüce former slaughterhouse as a cultural activity and congress center
• Rahmi-Koc industrial museum
• Kadir-Has University
• Rehabilitation of Feshane former textile fabric
45
Plan 2.5: General overview to Golden Horn, the existing and proposal projects surround Golden Horn
46
2.3.1. Galata and Its Historical Environs’ Regeneration
2.3.1.1. The History of Galata
From very early times there had been settlements along the northern shore of the Golden
Horn, known in Greek as Chryso Keras. The most important of the ancient settlements on
the north side of the Golden Horn was known as Sykai, “the Fig Trees” originated from
Greek. Fig is a native tree in Bosphorus area. The town continued to be known as Sykai up
until the eventh century, when it came to be called Galata, a name of uncertain origin
(FREELY, 2000).
Image 2.9: General overview to Galata tower and its surrounding Source: Conference about a
new urban planning approach for the
regeneration of a historical area from
Istanbul`s Central Business District
Sykai, was connected with the city by ferry. The existence of a wooden bridge is
mentioned in the sources, and in the time of Justinian this was replaced by a stone bridge,
the remains of which was seen in the 16th century by P. Gilles.
The first city was burned down in 1315, but immediately rebuilt, together with defence
walls. The earlest gate was the one on the east of present-day Azapkapi , dating from 1335
(KUBAN, 1996).
In the history of the city, after the Crusader’s period there existed political, commercial and
even physical duality between Galata and Istanbul. Although integrated politically and
economically with the life of the capital, Galata retained the status and image of separete
part of Istanbul. Galata has always kept this dual character and has continued to create a
certain tension between the old city and the so-called European part of the Bosphorus. This
duality was both formal and social. This European image had always been stengthened by
Latin, Frank, Greek and Jewish inhabitants, by religion, by language, by the members of
the foreign embassies, churches belonging to the european communities, the foreign
merchants and sailors, by its taverns and masonry buildings and by its symbolic Tower
(KUBAN, 1996).
47
On June I, 1453, the Galata region, together with most of its inhabitants and major
buildings, passed under Ottoman rule, after being granted an ahdname (a written document
conferring the bearer certain immunities) by Sultan Mehmed II. Galata today has changed
beyond recognition from the town of Ottoman and Genoese days. The population is now
almost exculisively Turkish, with only a handful of Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and
Levantine Europeans remaining along with the rare family of Genoese descent-the
magnificent community of Pera has now all but vanished (ORTAYLI, 1997).
It is a most important example for the better understanding of the peaceful transformation
of a Christian town into a Turkish one.
The composition of Galata’s cosmopolitian population was further enriched by the transfer
of the foreign embassies from Istanbul to Galata and Beyoglu. The development of
Beyoglu outside the walls after the 16th century proceeded in parallel with the
establishment of a new society at Pera. The extension of Christian quarters towards the
north, outside the Galata walls, are indicated by the establishment of foreign embassies on
the steep eastern slopes of the hills down to Bosphorus (KUBAN, 1996).
The town of Galata consisted of three districts separated by walls. Lubenau says that the
district close to Galata Tower, mainly inhabited by Genoese Christian merchants, was
Map 2.4: Plan of Istanbul, De Nyaste, 1811 Source: Maps of Istanbul
48
called Kulassa. The inhabitants of the second district, Ambar, were mostly Greek
craftsmen, and in this district there were bookshops where books in Greek, Latin, Spanish,
Italian and other languages (AND, 1994).
Mehmed the Conqueror gave special importance to ensuring that Galata remained a busy
commercial port, as in previous time. With the increase of population and the
establishment of new districts during the Genoese period, new walls were built around the
town, thus turning Galata into a castle with five sections. The Sultan ordered that some
portions of the land walls of Galata be partially demolished for security reasons. The initial
Genoese core of the town, the area between Azapkapi and Karaköy, expanded over time
towards the Big Tower, and remained as the liveliest commercial area of Galata during the
Ottoman period. Throughout the period, Galata rapidly became Turkish. The 1478 census
of Galata made by Kadi Muhyiddin yielded the following results: There were a total of 592
Greek-ortodox, 535 Muslim, 332 Latin and 62 Armenian households within the town of
Galata. Galata, with its active commerce and Western life style, has been a gate connection
Istanbul to Europe. As Tursun bey, the historian of Mehmed the conqueror once said, “if
you wish to go from Istanbul to Europe (that is Galata), the only thing you have to do is to
pay one akce to the boatman.” (ORTAYLI, 1997).
During the first half of 16.Century, Galata and its vicinity situated as a triangle area
opposite of historical peninsula. Galata tower located at the top of this hill and the
sequences of all other houses religion related buildings on the topography complement to
this old Genovese tower. In fact this tower created an urban layout at that time. Gardens
and vineyards surrounded Galata.
As the settlement situated on this steeply peak, it was common to see steps in places. In
Justinian era, it was forbidden to close the view of the existing buildings from sea side, so
it was decided to build new houses 100 feet to water under a law for city planning (AKIN,
1998).
Throughout the period, Galata remained as a commercial center, where the products of the
East and the West, namely European woolen cloth and Persian silk cloth, were exchanged.
By the year 1855, the region of Galata and especially its Persembe Pazari, Voyvada Street
and Karaköy sections, had already been transformed into a major commercial center where
European shops and financial institutions were located. This new development of Galata
attracted masses of Greeks, Armenians and Jews, who were previously living in other
districts of Istanbul and the ethnic makeup of the city changed once more. A new
cosmopolitan type called “Levantine” emerged.
49
Modern municipality in Istanbul was for the first time implemented in the Galata region,
imposed by the Europeans. Transportation between Istanbul and Galata through the Golden
Horn was mainly done by boats. The first bridge on the Golden Horn was built between
Azapkapi an Unkapani in the year 1836. In 1876, an underground tunnel was opened
between Karaköy and Beyoglu, which was one of the first metro of the world (ORTAYLI,
1997).
Modernism process in Turkey had started as soon as the declaration of republic however
one focus deeply, it would be obvious to consider this formation together with tendency to
westernization that comes from ottoman administrative reforms. The importance of
Galata is revealed precisely at this point. All initiatives for westernization point out Galata
zone and its environs. Once Istanbul was the meeting point of west and east, Galata had
always been the meeting point of Istanbul and west. In this regard Galata is sort of a
laboratory for eastern westernization that finds out a place for putting western values into
practise. Galata had always been a pioneer in some businesses like the first municipality,
the first bank, the fist modern education institutions, the first stock exchange.
Galata comprises the region on the north shore of the Golden Horn at its confluence with
the Bosphorus, stretching from there to the heights above and the district formerly known
as Pera and now called Beyoğlu. Today Galata is connected to the Constantiopolitan
peninsula by two bridges, Galata Bridge and Atatürk Bridge, the first of which crosses the
mouth of inlet and the second some 800 meters upstream (FREELY, 2000).
Map 2.5: Istanbul Metro, E Gavand, 1876 Source: Maps of Istanbul
50
Galata and its environs are comparible diffirentiated from the interior city wall zone, and
the other historical identity zones along the bosphorus in entire Istanbul. In this regard
Galata has started to create a magnificient point as a place for feeling formal expression of
historical values significantly. Another variable value for Galata is,to be able serve great
vistas and voluptous spaces as a reason of its accessibility and topography.
Image 2.10: A glance to Galata from Byzantine times
Throughout the history Galata kept its power with such qualities as safety, transportation.
But today these peculiarities are determined as marketing oriented structure to visualise
Istanbul image. The sloping topography of Galata and the visual connection between the
historical peninsula and anatolia side let Galata to be able to percieve from various points
of the city.
The district is known as one of the world’s cultural heritage in terms of its architectural,
cultural, social structure. In spite of its vital location and history, today the area is losing its
value. Considering the potential of the area, it really needs a regeneration to animate the
life there both physically and socially.
There had been several projects for the region Galata going under the Greater Municipality
of Istanbul and some of these projects are still in progress.
One of the recent and important one is the “a new urban planning approach for the
regeneration of a historical area from Istanbul’s Central Business District.
This study has adopted the basic concepts and methods of Space Syntax to develop a
regeneration strategy for Galata. The aim of the project is rehabilitation and transformation
of historic Galata which is a part of Istanbul’s CBD, while providing a proper relationship
of spatial layout and structural network within the metropolitan city. Also, to turn what is
currently an unpleasant, derelict area to a new active zone without losing its historical
character and to create a unified town center, this incorporates the historic core of Galata,
51
the existing retail area, and the seafront area into a well-connected, vibrant whole
(KUBAT&EYÜBOGLU&ERTEKIN, 2004).
Plan 2.6: Planning Decisions of Galata Tower and its environs
Source: A research of Kubat, Eyüboğlu, Ertekin from an international conference on Globalism and Urban
Change
2.3.2. Sütlüce Former Slaughterhouse as A Cultural Activity and Congress
Center
Sütlüce Former Slaughterhouse
Golden Horn Shipyard
Galata and its environs
Golden Horn Shipyard
52
This former slaughterhouse is one that also has a big role in the history of Golden Horn
development process likewise the others.
Plan 2.7: Sütlüce Former Slaughter Source:http://www.ntgt.de/2.html
Historical Heritage Quality
This complex had been built as one symbol of modernism on 1923 to answer the meat
demands of Istanbul residents. It continued its function till the end of 90s. It was one of the
complexes contaminated Golden Horn.
From architectural point of view, this building is not only an industrial structure but also it
represents an era of the public buildings that was also a common sense in whole Europe
capital cities. At the vicinity of Galata, it is usual to see art nouveau, eclectic (neoclassic,
neogreek, neobaroc) styles on commercial buildings unlike public buildings. They have a
unique eclectic style that complement to Ottoman time. Its history is comparable different
than other industrial structures along the Golden Horn however its existence enhance a
richness to historical heritage point of view.
Waterfront Quality
Accessibility is one of the characteristic that enriches this interface in context of touristhistoric
development. Also in the former times, they had been built near water both for
convenient transportation reasons and also easy and cheap waste recharge method by using
Golden Horn unless it is realized and moving from Golden Horn to Tuzla. Under the theme
of the project, accessibility enhances the value of the new amenities.
53
Potential Uses of These Two Qualities
Sütlüce Culture Center is one of big culture related investment which considering a part of
Golden Horn (Haliç) Environmental Project. The center has 5 main activity buildings with
73.000 m2 construction area. The complex consist of exhibition and meeting saloons,
theatre, concert and cinema buildings as well as 3.200 capacity car park and big sea
panoramic restaurant.
The historical remains were converted to serve the new functions. These new amenities are
fit to this former slaughter house in terms of accessibility from both for water, land
transportation and pedestrians. The interface of the complex with residential area was
provided by an underpass for vehicular traffic. Thus the resident of the environs could
benefit from waterfront and the new complex.
2.3.3. Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum
This museum is located in the anchor casting workshop at the docks on the Golden Horn
(Haliç), an area that symbolized industrialization in the Ottoman Empire of the 19th
century. It includes a new, largely underground, building as well as the historical 'foundry'
(Lengerhane) on the southwest part of site. The two buildings are connected by a glass -
sided ramp.
Image2.11:Sütlüce Cultural Center Source: Istanbul Annual Report-2002
54
Plan 2.8: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum
Source:http://www.rmk-museum.org.tr/
Historical Heritage Quality
The foundry is listed as a grade II historical building and is thought to have been built on
Byzantine foundations dating from the 12th century. The anchor casting workshop was
built in the era of Ahmet II (1703-1730) and the building’s foundations go back to a 12th
century Byzantine construction. It was restored under Selim III and used by the Finance
Ministry until 1951. It was handed over to the State Monopoly & Tobacco Factory in
Cibali and was used by them for the storage of alcohol. The roof sustained serious fire
damage in 1984 and subsequently the building was left derelict. In 1991, it was bought by
the Rahmi Koç Museum and Cultural Foundation, restored and opened to the public in
1994.
This historic dockyard was founded in 1861 by the former Ottoman Maritime Company for
the maintenance and repair of its own ships. The yard initially comprised just two
workshop buildings, and was gradually extended as needs and opportunities arose. A 45m
long cradle, powered by a steam capstan was constructed in 1884: later, in 1910, a second
cradle was added and the capstan converted to electric power.
Some of the earliest ferry boats were constructed here, including public favourites such as
the Kocatas and Sariyer vessels laid down in 1938 and in service for nearly half a century
(HISTORY, 2005; http://www.rmk-museum.org.tr/english/about/history.html).
The first museum rapidly outgrew itself, and in November 1996 the 11,086 m2 Haskoy
Dockyard, which was then nothing but a ruin on the shore of the Golden Horn opposite the
Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum
Golden Horn Shipyard
55
Museum, was purchased. Fourteen ruins on the site were faithfully restored to their
original condition, as well as the historic ship cradle and winch. To complete the current
picture, the 443 m2 plot beside the Lengerhane and the 6,670 m2 plot adjacent to the
dockyard were purchased in February 2001, after a tender by the Turkish Maritime
Authorities, for use as an outdoor exhibition area and carpark. The Museum, which
following restoration of the two historical buildings has 11,250 m2 of covered space on a
site of 20,250 m2 was opened to the public on July 10, 2001 (CONTENT, 2005;
http://www.istanbulperahotels.com/pera/content.php3?id=8).
On the first floor, motors and steam engines are displayed. On the second floor are the
scientific instruments and communications apparatuses. The entrance is reserved for the
aircraft department, mint machinery for printing paper money and coins, bicycles and
motorcycles, the naval department and ship engines. In the open area, there is a coast guard
life-boat, a tram, a narrow gauge steam train, and a vertical steam boiler (HISTORY,
2005; http://www.istanbulcityguide.com/history/body_carrier.htm).
Image 2.12: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum in 1900s Image 2.13: Rahmi-Koc Industrial Museum today
Source: http://www.rmk-museum.org.tr/
Waterfront Quality
Rahmi-Koc museum is like the other chosen projects located along Golden Horn have also
strong use of waterfront. The sea side of the museum as mentioned above was a continuity
of Golden Horn Docklands. The museum is easily accessible both from water and land. In
spite of the lack of the entrance from city side, the waterfront of the museum has the
potential for public transportation.
Potential Uses of These Two Qualities
56
These historical industrial remains from Ottoman era are converted to an industrial
museum. Whilst museum is so precious in terms of waterfront qualities and historical
heritage qualities, the efficient use of the area will be appeared more in time.
2.3.4. Rehabilitation of Feshane Former Ottoman Fez Factory
The former Ottoman Fez factory on the banks of the horn has been restored and reopened
as a conference and arts centre.
Historical Heritage Quality
Feshane, (the fez factory) which was the first significant industrial establishment of its
times, was commissioned in the Golden Horn area.
Image2.14:Feshane Ottoman fez factory Source: Dünden bugüne Halic
Feshane Fez factory
Golden Horn Shipyard
57
When the army attire was changed and it was accepted for soldiers to wear fez, this was
imported from Tunisia, Egypt, and Europe. Importing part of a soldier’s outfit was not
deemed appropriate, so domestic production was attempted.
Fez production first started in Feshane, established in Istanbul. The factory was expanded
in 1894 and 1916 and renewed to a great extent. It was the biggest facility in the weaving
industry of Turkey as of 1917, providing half of the whole weaving production together
with the Hereke. The factory continued to work as a military facility from 1877 until 1921.
In 1925, it was turned over to the Industry and Mining Bank and in 1937 to Sümerbank,
changing its name to "Sümerbank Defterdar Mensucat Fabrikası" (Sümerbank Defterdar
Textile Factory). It experienced a major fire in 1949 and was repaired. It was torn down by
the Municipality of Istanbul in 1986 within the scope of clearing the surrounding area of
the Golden Horn, and with this its apparel section was moved to the Bakırköy Factory.
Waterfront Quality
Feshane is located nearby Golden Horn Bridge. It was also built on the edge of water for
convenient transportation reasons during Ottoman times. And now this feature brings also
advantages to experience the new functions there. Waterfront use directly related with the
easy accession of public to the area. Entrance is provided from waterfront by a new pier
added to vehicular transportation. However public entrance from the road side is not clear
aswell.
Potential Uses of These Two Qualities
In 1992, within the collaboration between the entrepreneur private institution and the
municipality, it was converted to contemporary handcraft museum. The building has a
4004m2 space without any division that provides a wide perspective to perceive the
Image2.15:Feshane
Ottoman fez factory
Source: Dünden
bugüne Halic
58
original interior walls, entire steel construction of the roof. The space is designed for
variety of facilities like exhibition, fair, concert; auction, congress and various
entertainments, and infrastructure and the comfort elements are considered as well.
18000m2 is considered as a parking area for the visitors, other 38000m2 is designed for
recreational uses for public benefit
(EYUPSULTAN, 2005; http://www.ibb.gov.tr/ibbtr/140/14010/kultur/eyupsultan.htm).
The historical heritage value of the building is also positive revenue for waterfront
development in this example. The conservation of this former factory is also important in
terms of sustainability. The new functions do not harm the environs of Golden Horn. In
spite of deficient local public access, the situation is healthier in wider perspective. It is
one ring of the Golden Horn cultural valley chain. It is expected to bring economical
liveliness locally and in general although application tools are not taken into consideration
clearly. It does not function efficiently except several organizations in whole year.
2.3.5. Cibali Former Tobacco Factory as a University
The Cibali Tobacco and Cigarette Factory is an important building in the panorama of
Istanbul's Historical Peninsula as seen from the Golden Horn - a skyline dominated by
monumental buildings from the Ancient, Byzantine and Ottoman Periods. Cigarette and
tobacco production is shifted to educational production as Kadir Has University.
Cibali Tobacco factory
Golden Horn Shipyard
59
Image 2.16: Unkapani bridge from Cibali Image 2.17: Cibali from Golden Horn
Source: http://www.europanostra.org/lang_en/ Source: Dünden bugüne Halic
awards_2003/tr_cibali.html
Historical Heritage Quality
The building was designed by architect A. Valluary in 1884, with additions by architects
H. Aznavur and E. Bottazi. The original factory complex consisted of a few adjoining
blocks connected by courtyards and arcades. Because of the limited and highly valuable
land, to provide additional floor space inner courtyards were enclosed and new
intermediary storey added. Much of the original design and details could no longer be
recognized. The Cibali Tobacco Factory (40,000 m2 of enclosed area) is one of the most
significant examples of the cultural heritage of the Early Industrialization Period. It was
once an important industrial center, with more than 1500 female and male workers, and
with workshops, a health center, a sports complex, a market, a kindergarten, a school, fire
and security departments, and a museum derived (HISTORY, 2005;
http://www.khas.edu.tr/eng/khuhistory.php).
When tobacco production moved elsewhere in 1995, this state-owned building acquired a
new importance as an industrial heritage monument and was leased to Kadir Has
University in 1997. It has been transformed into an educational and cultural facility,
helping to rehabilitate the surrounding urban environment. The building was stripped of all
the later additions with little or no historical value. The existing structure was consolidated
by using original and innovative techniques, and the spaces required by the new function
were adjusted to fit the existing plan of the building. The wooden and iron structure has
been cleaned and left exposed throughout, giving a distinctive character to the various
spaces and the complex as a whole.
60
Waterfront Quality
Convenient accessibility of the complex was because of its strategic location due to the
intensive production and transportation reasons of former times. On the other hand this
situation eased the contamination of Golden Horn so fast. There is not a direct water edge
of the complex as a vehicular road cutting the building from the water now. Waterfront use
of this particular project is more related with Golden Horn master plan instead of local use.
Potential Uses of These Two Qualities
As a university the purpose of the waterfront use is not directly related with the new
function although it has the potential to develop waterfront use of its environs by recreating
the water edge and developing new amenities for the public. University just enhances a
diversity of functions along Golden Horn. On one hand new function inquires public
benefits on the other hand conservation of the building as a historical venue develop
Golden Horn vicinity culturally and historically. The new function is determined
considering the central location of the complex in terms of accessibility.
2.4. Conclusion
These 5 projects have common senses in practice.
To stop the physical collapse and to provide the sustainability of historical pattern.
To reanimate the economical life.
To increase the urban life quality and start the cultural dynamics in society.
To promote the environmental and master plan of Golden Horn
Image2.18: Cibali Factory as a university
Source: http://www.europanostra.org/lang_en/awards_2003/tr_cibali.html
61
To be one part of golden horn master plans, both of them encouraging the concept of the
great municipality of Istanbul as art and culture valley in Golden Horn. Each of them has
its own potential. They have the criterion determined in Chapter 1 to be a catalyst in
redevelopment of Golden Horn. The subtle thing is to be able to perceive this entire project
as a whole. Golden Horn shipyards is one of the projects that have also the same quality
likewise the others but what makes it special is its unique location and winking at historical
Galata and its environs.
After all, in big cities as Istanbul where speculative real estate appears to rule,
rehabilitating abandoned industrial properties to accommodate new uses is very profitable.
It will definitely be more attractive if these properties are near Golden Horn as well.
PART 3: THE CREATION OF A POST INDUSTRIAL PORTSCAPE
COMPARING WITH WORLDWIDE EXAMPLES
3.1. Shipyards and other water-industrial complex in worldwide: conservation
and evaluation criteria
Shipyards which aren’t used and which are restructured moving them outside the city and
by equipping them with the latest technology or completely closed have become
dysfunctional areas that are open for new uses. In every city facing to this situation,
reutilization of such important areas is coming to order. Right after, subjects such as how
to protect and evaluate the technical monuments which are the products of an industry and
technology belonging to a certain period, how to use the spaces for which new buildings,
how to serve the area for whom, how to contribute the city culture, what are the
expectations and how to take advantage of water culture, are being considered at length by
national and international symposiums, gatherings and experts.
However, shipyards in the cities where the same process have experienced and in where
results have been gotten, usually take place in a port complex or with the port. We are
facing to very few shipyards, like Venice, which are carrying on their function as a facility
in where only ship’s construction, maintenance and repair, and equipments belonging to
shipping are being performed as big as it from 15th century to the present time in Golden
Horn. For this reason, very different problems have been taken in hand from Golden Horn
shipyards in case re-use of the shipyards in cities such as Liverpool, Helsinki, and Venice
mentioned below. However, it indicates that there are some lessons to be taken since the
main concept and decisions are almost same in each and they caused successful results.
62
Because of the abundance of the examples, a synthesis has been achieved by translating the
examples that are relatively close to our problem.
3.1.1. Arsenal- Venice
The Venetian Arsenal is a shipyard and naval depot that played a leading role in Venetian
empire-building. It was also the first factory of the world. The Byzantine-style
establishment may have existed as early as the 8th century, though the present structure is
usually said to have been begun in 1104, although there is no evidence for such a precise
date. It definitely existed by the early thirteenth century and is mentioned in Dante's
Inferno (ARSENAL, 2005; http://www.answers.com/venice%20arsenal)
It spreads in 46ha area. It differentiated from Golden Horn with its architecture style.The
structure complex has represented the fundamental heart of the Venetian economy and
civil history, so much so that in 1509 the Senate officially defined it as the "heart of the
region of Veneto".The shipyard is at the service of the military for a long time and access
to the shipyard is only possible with exclusive permission.
Map 3.1: The Venice Arsenal area Source: www.eurimage.com/ gallery/webfiles/hr.html
The urban district of the Arsenal, which is complex and integrated, is about 9 centuries old.
The layout of the Arsenal derives from a geometrical, functional matrix that remained
constant during its development over the centuries. The geometrical laws on which this
vast complex was based can still be seen in the elemental and repeated module of the
shipyard, whose design was dictated by the simple rules of ship building techniques. The
original building module was repeated over the centuries, according to the same laws and
geometries, which varied only with the introduction of bigger ships, with higher hulls and
the use of square sails. The only buildings used for complementary activities to ship
building, have differing and sometimes considerable dimensions, such as the "Corderie",
63
which is 317 meters long and the "Squadratori" building, which is 140 meters long
(ARSENALE, 2005; http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm).
The evolution of the Arsenal structure was marked by a succession of extensions and by
ongoing changes in the structures themselves, both following accidents, but above all, due
to technical progress and historical events. The "Old" Arsenal was built between 1100 and
1300, and the "New" Arsenal complex between 1300 and 1400, while the "Newest"
Arsenal was built between 1473 and 1573 (ARSENALE, 2005;
http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm).
Plan 3.1: The Arsenale building phases
Source: www.eurimage.com/ gallery/webfiles/hr.html
Significant parts of the Arsenal were destroyed under Napoleonic rule, and later rebuilt to
enable the Arsenal's present use as a naval base. It is used as a research centre, an
exhibition venue during the Venice Biennale and is home to a historic boat preservation
centre (ARSENAL, 2005; http://www.answers.com/venice%20arsenal).
This research center (Thetis) actually focused on marine and coastal technologies. The
idea behind the Thetis initiative was first conceived in 1989, in one of several degree thesis
supervised by the Faculty of Architecture of Venice University, examining a number of
hypotheses for the re-use of the Arsenal. The idea expounded in the thesis, which
envisaged using the large complex as a site for setting up a marine technology centre, was
taken on board by Tecnomare; an international marine engineering company based in
Venice, and was developed into a feasibility project. The project was presented to the city
in 1991, and was warmly received by both the Municipality of Venice and the Veneto
Region (ARSENALE, 2005; http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm).
64
Architectural intervention of the area is promoted with overlaying the historic, monumental
and significant area hereby a technological structure equipment complex. The intervention
comprises four buildings, located in Arsenale Novissimo and first built between the 16th
and 19th Centuries. Integration between old structures with their new functions was the
main purpose of the project. The new structures are, in fact, built inside the old ones thus
this means the interior facade of old will see the exterior facade of the new. This approach
will not also harm the original state of the ancient building unless they should be no longer
needed.
Image 3.1: The site of Thetis’s headquarters during the course of building work
Source: http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm
Thetis occupies a covered area of about 4500 m2 and an uncovered area of 6500 m2 . The
central part is made up of two brick buildings, linked by a wall of arches. One of the two
buildings is equipped with a workshop and test area. The other building is built on three
levels, the highest of which extends to the truss of the roof. In the four buildings which
face the dock of the old Arsenale, there is an infrastructure which is currently used as a
warehouse and depot, with a view to the future expansion of the city. (ARSENALE, 2005;
http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm).
Although Thetis occupies only a modest part of the Arsenal, which is a large complex, the
company has shown how the area can be maintained and reused for the activity for which it
was first built, namely technological production. Thetis thus constitutes the central part of
a wider re-qualification project, which is important for the future of the city.
The key factors of the initiative were:
• The company's sense of determination, which stimulated the interest and the
commitment of private companies and public bodies alike;
• The passionate support of local government agencies (Council and Region)
65
• The financial support of the European Union, which endorsed the project as one of
its Pilot Urban Projects; and
• Thetis's immediate commencement of operational activities on the market. The
process of obtaining authorization and gathering the necessary financial resources
was relatively long (1991 to 1996); the execution of the work, by contrast, was
relatively short (14 months)
(ARSENALE, 2005; http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm).
Image 3.2: Some of the particular solutions adopted in the recover interventions
Source: www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm
3.1.2. Albert Dock- Liverpool
Liverpool has a long maritime history; it was mentioned for the first time in 1191 and
received its first town charter in 1207. Industrial revolution also takes place in the
development Liverpool ports.
In response to the expansion of trade and the introduction of steamships, a Mersey Docks
and Harbors Board were constituted in 1858. The docks expanded along 10 kilometers (5
miles) of the river in front of the city and embraced 200 hectares (500 acres) of water and
50 kilometers (31 miles) of quayside.
66
The Merseyside Development Corporation (MDC) controls three parts of the Liverpool
docks. Largest one is south Liverpool docks that continue 7km along the water. These
docks have 3 subparts. Riverside located on the northern side of the zone where an
international garden festival was planned in 1984 and retail educational and entertainment
activities took place. Brunswick. It was one part of the MDC development plan to develop
these areas in terms of tourism and recreation (NORTHWEST, 2005;
http://www.rudi.net/bookshelf/ej/udq/75/northwest.cfm).
Plan 3.2: Liverpool’s waterfront
Source: Recreation And Tourism As A Catalyst For Urban Waterfront Redevelopment
Albert dock is located on the northern part of this zone; it was an area of dereliction. It was
designed in 1839 by Jesse Hartley and opened in 1846. It was designed to be secure and
fireproof employing iron and brick construction and enclosing the central pool with
warehouses. The functional architecture of the docks has it own beauty that impresses
today. The five storey warehouses that surround the dock are supported on the ground floor
by massive Doric cast iron columns. Other details of the dock's innovative construction can
be seen in the iron cross braces on the upper floors and in the flat-arched brick floor
supports. The dock was closed in 1972 and nearly demolished ,all dock gates were broken
and wartime damages had never been repaired, but by 1984 it was completely restored.
The obvious tourism potential of this area designated new interventions. Their historicity
and accessibility made the area attractive.
67
The MDC, in conjunction with a private developer, renovated the dock complex at a cost
of £70 million. The complex is an integrated development of office, residential, and tourist
cultural and shopping complexes. Within the historic dockside buildings are a Maritime
Museum, the northern annex to London's Tate Art Gallery, a Museum of Emigration, the
Beatles` storey Granada TV studios, restaurants, apartments, and leisure facilities. In 1988,
it won the British Tourist Authority's "Come to Britain Trophy" (MDC 1990)
(CRAIG&STEPHEN&FAGENCE&MICHAEL, 1995).
The pool within the dock is often busy during the summer. With over 5 million people
visiting the site a year this is among Britain's most popular tourist attractions and is a major
focus for the 14,000 people who are now employed in Merseyside's tourism industry.. The
Albert Dock is a truly successful example of the adaptation of historic buildings for
modern use. Whilst in Liverpool the two modern cathedrals and the new Watersports
Centre in the Queens Dock are worth a visit (NORTHWEST, 2005;
http://www.rudi.net/bookshelf/ej/udq/75/northwest.cfm).
3.1.3. Helsinki-Finland
The 200 hectare west port and shipyard of Helsinki has lost its function short time ago and
located at 10 km south of the city center, the new port was being used having the capacity
of 13 million tons of load and storage .In 1987, two stages architectural project contest had
been opened for the shipyard and port that was emptied with its all stations and cranks.
When the port and shipyard is out of service in 2005, 80 hectare of the area will be used for
5.000 dwellings in which 12.000 people can reside and work spaces to be formed for
3.500. Partially collapsed, the cable factory was functionalized as a multi purpose cultural
center to be art and cultural center, restaurant, museum, dance and music houses and part
of the Faculty of Architecture of Helsinki Technical School since the university designed
Image 3.3: Liverpool’s
waterfront
Source:
http://www.rudi.net/booksh
elf/ej/udq/75/northwest.cfm
68
by Alvar Aalto in Otaniemi hasn’t got enough area to enlarge. The first residences had
been started in 1992 in the houses. The rental charge is about 11 Euro for per square meter
in the houses 80 % of which has three rooms and bathroom, sale charge, on the other hand
is about 1900 Euro. Usually young people prefer to reside in the district and average age is
about 30 (MIMARIST MAGAZINE, 2001).
Another example can be on the islands just off Helsinki in the middle of the 18th century
was one of historic dock converted for new functions.
3.1.3.1. The past and future of the Soumenlinna galley dock, the idea of living
museum
Plan 3.3: Showing the four islands of the Suomenlinna sea fortress; the dockyard is in the middle.
Source: http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng
The Suomenlinna sea fortress is the most significant restoration project in Finland. It is
included in the Unesco World Heritage List along with three other Finnish sites. Because
of its dockyard Suomenlinna is also a unique monument of industrial history (HOYLE&
PINDER, 1992).
In the Finnish period the dockyard has been used among other things as an aircraft factory
and a depot for submarines. Another basin at the western end was built in the 1930s. As a
result of war reparations after the Second World War shipbuilding was re-established. The
fortress was in military use until 1973, when it was handed over to the Governing Body of
Suomenlinna, an autonomous department under the Ministry of Education. Commercial
shipbuilding, ceased in the dockyard in 1985 whereupon the Governing Body was faced
69
with the problem of the future use of the dockyard (INDEX, 2005;
http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng)
Government made a long-term overall plan for the dockyards in 1992 .The plan has three
main intentions:
• To provide for the winter storage and renovation of historical wooden ships,
• To preserve the characteristics of the area and
• To open the dockyard to the public
The shoreline of the dock area will be converted the shape of the Russian era including the
partial re-opening of the former entrance passage to the eastern basin. It is hoped that this
will give people some idea of the dimensions of the old frigates.
The real treasure of the dockyard is the Old Russian engineering workshop (building number
B5), which gave the first inspiration to be a living museum. It is still in use; the
machines are from the 1930s and 50s. The building includes a direct current transformer, a
smiths and a repair hall, an example of early use of reinforced concrete.
Image 3.4: Suomenlinna Museum Image 3.5: Aerial photo of Suomenlinna, central in the
background
Source: http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng
The idea of a living museum is expressed in the dockyard plan. This entails the B5 building
preserving its interiors as they are with ship owners using it as before and the public could
watch them working. As yet there are no museums of this type in Finland. The idea sounds
attractive, but in practice it is not so simple to carry it out. The interiors and the machines
are so susceptible to damage that the whole building should in fact be closed both to the
public and the users.
70
Image 3.6: The building of the dock basin in the 1760s
Source: http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng
The second doubt concerning a living museum is that there is rarely any activity in B5. The
owners of wooden ships do not need the engineering workshop very often. There would
have to be a number of iron ships for the building to be in more active use. But such use it
hardly bears any more (HOYLE & PINDER, 1992).
Today, Suomenlinna is Helsinki’s most important tourist attraction, a living element of the
urban scene and an important cultural centre. The Naval Academy on Pikku Mustasaari
Island reminds us of its military past and wooden boats are refurbished at the historic
shipyards. Nearly a half a million visitors come to Suomenlinna annually. The islands are
home to 900 residents and provide 350 year-round jobs. The Nordic Institute for
Contemporary Art opened on the islands in 1978. There is frequent ferry service to the
islands throughout the year
(INDEX, 2005; http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng).
Functions, such as dwelling, business center, cultural center, recreation area, that are open
to the public have been preferred firstly in reutilization of the shipyards. The first target is
to add said areas to the daily life of city and to make contribution to city culture.
Management of city takes into account that the city and its future while the management is
making a decision on new function selection of the large scaled areas. Decisions on re-use,
investment to be made and target audience are made jointly.
People and the city management make decision on the new function selection jointly. First
of all a partnership is established by the support of the government. All applications and
decisions are under the inspection of the partnership by the control of monuments
committees and the government. In addition to the government, private enterprises make
contributions to the expenditures on some specific conditions.
71
Following the completion of application, the city management also makes joint decisions
for all area. For instance, rental and sale charges of the places that used as dwellings are
determined beforehand like Helsinki example. Thus, different applications are enabled.
Besides, social dwellings are preferred as in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Otherwise, the
increasing dwelling costs causes that the area lost its identification, estrangement of it and
increasing of the rent values which are difficult to meet as in the London Docks region
example.
As it is seen in the given examples, there isn’t any example for Istanbul. Every shipyard
had re-utilization convenient to its own architectural identity. However, the main purposes
and results must be applied for Golden Horn shipyards as well.
3.2. Modeling the Golden Horn Waterfront within the given examples
The proposal for the shipyard of Golden Horn directly related with its heritage context,
vital location, the priorities on the environment, local and general initiatives about Golden
Horn and Galata, and the synthesis of overall examples given. This thesis is in fact giving
a perspective with these objectives.
A. to identify the ways of securing the long term viability of Golden Horn shipyard as
a working port
B. to develop and enhance the status of the port as a center of cultural, historical
industrial heritage in order to meet the needs of resident and visitors in context of
cultural valley mission endowed for Golden Horn by the planning department of
the Metropolitian municipality.
C. to conserve and enhance the built heritage of the shipyard
D. to create a pedestrian based living environment along the shoreline and connect
this system to important destinations through a network of pathways in the region
Galata.
These objectives are speculating a catalyst process from the transformation of a shipyard
as a local intervention to a coherent urban regeneration for the region of Golden Horn and
Galata. These expectation of course is based on the possibilities going on the area.
The overall design is shaped within the planning decision of Golden Horn. However the
expectation is opposite as mentioned before.
72
Plan 3.4: Land use pattern and transportation network of near vicinity
Source: A research of Kubat, Eyüboğlu, Ertekin for an international conference on Globalism and Urban
Change
Today Golden Horn shipyards can not work properly even it creates an environmental and
visual pollution because of the derelict buildings and spaces. Moreover, the complexity of
Galata and its environs nearby the future expectation of Golden Horn cause disuse of area
potentials.
From the mentioned objectives the policies are as follows:
• A living museum concept in order to meet the long term viability of Golden Horn
shipyard.
• To propose a new bridge working as a gate not as an obstacle that complements to
the connections and pedestrian circulation in addition to vehicular use.
• To create a new tourist cultural pedestrian network supports also the Galata routes.
73
Plan 3.5: The exaggerated network plan of Galata, intervolving with new path
Source: Base air photo from the research of Kubat, Eyüboğlu, Ertekin for an international conference on
Globalism and Urban Change
A living museum concept in order to meet the long term viability of Golden Horn shipyard
In order to continue the shipyard as a working port, one has to think the new dynamics of
the big cities. Doing so brings new provisions that will form the new shipyard in a different
manner. One of them and the strongest one would be a living museum with the other
maritime museum activities also related with the idea of cultural activity zone along
Golden Horn.
There is only a ship museum depending on the Department of the Navy and a technical
museum in Istanbul, there is a need to museum where the original techniques might be
presented in-situ. In a live museum given as an example in this thesis from Soumenlinna
galley dock in Finland or small workshops where the ship’s construction and repair may be
explained, and technologies of centuries may be instructed, closed civil museums might be
created where workshops may be established, the proper places may be given to the
students from ship’s construction engineering and sea products. While, cleaning of Golden
74
Horn comes to order and works are started, studies which income are producing might
provide an opportunity to either meet the lacks of the region with its own facilities or make
contribution to the Golden Horn projects.
By removing the buildings of poor quality with the approval of monuments committee in
today’s Golden Horn Shipyard, the space achieved may be put into use as marinas, fish
restaurants, fish markets, shops, small workshops, parks, playgrounds for children and
recreational areas. Furthermore, wharfs which aren’t used may be activated by
strengthening the sea transportation, and the others wharf, on the other hand, may be
arranged and activated as well. It is possible to form a ship-museum by using the built
ships in the shipyard; port-museum in which boat, ship cranks; sliding ways and the other
technical installations might be exhibited. It is possible to develop tens of suggestions like
these upon the request.
The following illustration shows the adoptability of existing structures to a modern
museum. The docks are still being used for its former functions but in a different way. It
will also show to visitors how the process goes through. Doing so, some wood decks
installed to one side of the docks to see the construction process under a tensioned tent.
These decks will be integrated in both three docks for varieties of cultural activities like
concerts, parties, meetings, and so on. From this moment, Docks show a pretentious way
of using as an amphitheater for its new visitors.
75
Image 3.7: Living museum, dock as show platform both for museum and other activities Photographed and rendered by: A. Kaan Özgün
22
76
To propose a new bridge working as a gate not as an obstacle complement to the
connections and pedestrian circulation in addition to vehicular use.
The Golden Horn shipyard is seeking its new identity in terms of the transformation of the
former industrial structures in Golden Horn and the regeneration of Galata and its environs.
In this respect, the core of cultural valley mission is endowed to the vicinity of Galata, and
Golden Horn shipyards. These nodes need to be intervolved instead of a segregation to
have a healthy future development in terms of inheritance and a strong pedestrian network
in historic city. The approach is embracing the problem inside the area instead of rejecting.
The former Unkapani Bridge is cutting through the area. The shipyard due to its
management, local and general initiatives, and former function had to have an introverted
structure that caused dereliction in the whole area. Existing bridge is an obstacle for
pedestrian circulation along the shore line. This cut also isolates Galata region to involve in
waterfront use. A new bridge might be also a solution instead of the wearied away one in
terms of the enhancing the pedestrian use and envisioning the new traffic network and
integrating Galata with water.
Doing so, disused of shoreline will turn into a promenade started from Galata Bridge or
even from Tophane and will continue to Kasimpasa docks. This continuity insists on direct
waterfront use including the cultural functions along the shoreline. The illustration is
showing the pedestrian route along the water, the new bridge, public green areas and open
space locations with existing buildings and key historic buildings.
This plan focuses not just on enhancing and adding to existing open space but on
improving the connections to and between them. It is important to link existing parks and
planned open space to important destinations like Galata region within the neighbourhood
and to adjacent vicinities. Doing so will help both to enliven the open space and to orient
people as they move about the neighbourhood. Existing and future open spaces should be
connected to each other. A network of open space and pedestrian routes has a more
substantial presence than small and unrelated parks and pathways. It will even need the
special for being in the core of tourist historic waterfront. Making a more attractive and
pedestrian-friendly environment is the substantial part of the neighbourhood and tourist
historic waterfront.
77
Plan 3.6: Planning Concept of Shipyard and near vicinity.
22
33
11
78
This bridge might be an archetypal post-modern construction that complements to the
aqueducts of Unkapani, which is evidently seen as a silhouette on the other side of the
water in the photo. The topographical characteristic of seven-hill city would ease to
construct a bridge like this. Refik Saydam Street coming from the Tarlabasi direction will
meet the first base of the new bridge on the level 15 or 20 meters, thus there will be an
opportunity for a pedestrian flow underneath the bridge.
Image 3.9. Refik Saydam Street from Tarlabasi direction glancing to Unkapani Bridge.
Image 3.8. The Uzunkemer Aqueduct
33
79
Image 3.10. New bridge proposal from the same direction. Photographed and rendered by: A. Kaan
Özgün
Image 3.11: Shipyard’s isolated open spaces, and Unkapani Bridge as an obstacle for pedestrians
The ramps going through water will be used as contemporary playing grounds and
recreational areas. The existing winches will be used for this purpose as well. The
historical heritage values will be preserved, refunctioned and the other parts that were
added recently will be removed from the historical buildings. These workshops and
storages will be converted to conceptual studios, art houses, cultural activity canters. The
new piers will be served for public transportation to the variety spots in entire Golden
Horn.
80
Image 3.12: Reuse of open space and the connectivity with the other side Photographed and rendered by: A. Kaan Özgün
11
81
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
Today Golden Horn shipyard spreads on 75.000m2 area in between Kasımpasha creek and
Atatürk (Unkapanı) bridge. It has a 457m length pier, three historical dry pool, and two
building stocks. There is no more connectivity between past ,the city and the dockland due
to the construction of Unkapanı bridge, the cleaning of surrounding buildings and
widening Tarlabaşı and Tersane streets except the mosque.
Golden Horn dockland lost its function and causes visual and environmental pollision with
its old and neglected structures. The difficulties to use Golden Horn, affect the integration
of dockland into nowadays negatively. It is inevitable to decentralize these functions like
heavy industry and shipyards that need vast space use, and to bring new urban functions
instead of the old ones in huge Metropolitan cities.Golden Horn shipyard has the potential
to complement to the proposed transformation projects for vicinity of Galata due to both its
location and future function. To assume golden horn dockland together with the region
Galata again , will bring unity and diversity to this zone and considering the future user
group of , easy accessibility and new proposed functions could absorb this density of user
group.
The main reasons behind the chosen area are existing infrastucture for the future
development, the close distance to the historical center, and the precious historical
buildings.
It is a fact that Industrial civilization, the symbol of our contemporary world cannot be
interrogated despite its obvious inappropriateness. Consequently the realistic manner is
accepting the secondary effects and then struggle for its negativeness and consider the
advantages of its development. World economy encourages the urban development and
designated industrialisation. Landscape architects can not interfere this.However they can
create satisfying space and increase space quality in an environmental manner despite such
an urbanization and industrialisation.
In this regard these regeneration and transformation projects for Golden Horn dockland
and its surrounding could most certainly designate the destiny of the region, on the other
hand if one consider the location, size and functional potential of the area, it is possible to
speculate about it to have the synergy for the transformation of entire Galata and its
environs.
Transformation of Golden Horn dockland in context of regeneration process of Galata,
briefly has the vitality to reanimate this dilapidated region and integrate it inside the city.
82
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acikkol, C. (2001): Istanbul icin Görüsler. KaleTerasit, Birsen yayinevi,Istanbul
Akalın, E. Ö. (2003): Kentsel Dönüşümün uygulanabilirligine yönelik bir alan araştırması,
Dolapdere örneği. Istanbul Technical University Master Thesis, Istanbul
Akin, N. (1998): 19.yüzyilin ikinci yarisinda Galata ve Pera. Literatür yayincilik, Istanbul
And, M. (1994): Istanbul in the 16th Century: The city, the palace, daily life. Akbank,
Istanbul
Arkitekt Magazine ,Fotoproje (1991): Sütlüce Mezbahasi, no:3, Istanbul, 68-73
Arkitekt Magazine ,Fotoproje (1991): Feshane. no:6, Istanbul, 66
Arredamento Magazine, Cagdas Sanat Müzesi. Istanbul, 82-97
Belge, M. (1993): Istanbul Gezi Rehberi. Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yayinlari, Istanbul
Berberoglu, U. (2004): Halic Kiyilarindaki Yeni Duzenlemeler ve Kiyi parklarinin
kullanicalar tarafindan degerlendirilmesi. Istanbul Technical University Master Thesis,
Istanbul
Binney M., Machin F., Powell K, (1990): Bright Future: The re-use of industrial buildings.
Save Britain`s Heritage, London, 13
Bostan, I. (1992): Osmanli Bahriye Teskilati: XVII. Yüzyilda Tersane-i Amire. Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara
Breen, A. & Rigby, D. (1997): Waterfronts Cities Reclaim Their Edge. The Waterfront
Press, Washington
Bruttumesso, R. (1991): waterfront: una nuova frontiera urbana. Centro Internazionale
Citta’d’acqua, Venezia
Craig S., Stephen J., Fagence, M.(1995): Recreation And Tourism As A Catalyst For
Urban Waterfront Redevelopment. Praeger: New York, 135,140-1,156
Çetin M., Doyduk S. (2003): Balıkesir Tarihi Kent Merkezine Bir Yeniden Canlandırma
Model önerisi.Kentsel Dönüşüm Sempozyumu , Bildiriler, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Basım-Yayın Merkezi,İstanbul
Çelik, Z. (1996): 19. Yüzyilda Osmanli Baskenti Degisen Istanbul.Tarih Vakfi Yurt
Yayinlari, Istanbul
Decarbognano , C. c. (1993): 18.yüzyilin sonunda Istanbul. Eren yayincilik,Istanbul
Dökmeci, V. , Dülgeroglu Y.,Akkal L. B. (1993):Istanbul sehir merkezi transformasyonu
ve Büro binalari. Literatür yayinlari, Istanbul
Encomium to Istanbul, (1994): YKY, Istanbul
84
Erden, D. (2003): Kentsel yenilesmede bir arac olarak dönüsüm projeleri. Mimar Sinan
University Phd Thesis, Istanbul
Ergun, N.(2003):İstanbul Şehir Merkezi Yakın Çevresinde Kullanım ve Kullanıcı
Farklılaşması.Uluslararası 14. Kentsel Tasanın ve Uygulamalar Sempozyumu, MSU,
Istanbul
Eşkar, F. (1997): Liman Kentlerinin Yenilenmesi. Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul
Freely, J. (2000): Galata: a guide to Istanbul’s Old Genoese Quarter, Archaeology & Art
Publications, Istanbul,4
Greed C. & Roberts M. (1998): Introducing Urban Design: Interventions and Responses.
Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Singapore,87-88,90
Harvey, D. (1990): The conditions of Postmodernism. Metis yayinlari, Istanbul
Hoyle, B.S. & Pinder, D.A. (1992): European port cities in transition. Belhaven Press,
London, 75-77,177,178-9,181,187,198-9
Inankul, S. (1985): Türkiye’de kentlesme-sanayi sürecinde kent merkezinin gelisme süreciörnekleme
Eskisehir kent merkezi. Istanbul Technical University Phd,Istanbul
Istanbul Magazine ( 2001): Endüstri Mirasının Korunması. 134
Istanbul Magazine (2003): Istanbul’un Kapilari. no:37, Istanbul, 122
Istanbul Magazine (1992): Istanbul ve Kültür. no:3, Istanbul,16-39
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (2002): Istanbul Annual Report. Istanbul
Keskin, Z. (2004): Halic’in 1980 sonrasi mekansal dönüsümü:Tarihi sanayi yapi dönüsüm
projelerinin kentsel yenilesme acisindan bir degerlendirilmesi. Mimar Sinan University
Master Thesis, Istanbul.
Kıraç, B. (2001): Türkiye'deki Tarihi Sanayi Yapılarının Günümüz Koşullarına Göre
Yeniden Değerlendirilmeleri Konusunda Bir Yöntem Araştırması. Mimar Sinan University
Phd Thesis, İstanbul
Koçyiğit, R. G. (2002): Mimar Sinan University Master Thesis.Mimari Tasarımda
süreklilik kavramı ve Galata örneği.Mimar Sinan University Library, Istanbul,151
Köksal, T.G. (1996): Halic Tersaneleri’nin Tarihsel Teknolojik Gelisim Süreci ve Koruma
Önerileri. Istanbul Technical University Master Thesis, Istanbul,31-74
Kuban, D. (1996): Istanbul: an urban history. Byzantion, Constantinopolis, Istanbul
Published by the Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey, Istanbul,11-13,185-
186,231,236
85
Kubat A.S., Eyüboğlu E., Ertekin Ö., (2004): A New urban planning approach for the
regeneration of a historical area from Istanbul’s central business district. Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul
Kültür Bakanligi Yayinlari, (1993): Istanbul. Istanbul
Kültür Yayin Danismanlik Ltd. (1999): Hava fotograflariyla Istanbul Sehir Rehberi:
Avrupa Yakasi. IBBP harita müdürlügü yayinlari, Istanbul
Lynch, K.( 1976): What Time Is This Place? The MIT Press
Malone, P. (1996): City, Capital and Water. Published by Routledge,London and Newyork
Mimarist Magazine,(2004): Dosya: Kentsel Dönüsüm ve Katilim. no:12, Istanbul, 59-92.
Mimarist Magazine (2001): Mimarlik ve su, no: 2, Istanbul, 85-95
Naib S., Carr. R. (1986): Dockland, An illustrated historical survey of life and work in east
London. Published by North East London Polytechnic in conjunction with the greater
London Council, London
Ortayli, I. (1995): Istanbul`dan sayfalar. Hil Yayin, Istanbul
Ortayli, I. (1997): Istanbul- world city. History foundation publications, Istanbul,33-34,37
Osmay, S. :75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık. Tarih Vakfi Yayını
Stanford, J. Shaw (1971): Between Old and New: The Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim
III 1789-1807. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The international Committee for the conservation of the Industrial Heritage, ( 2000): 10th
International Conference, Maritime Technologies, Mining Landscapes, Athens
T.C. Istanbul Büyük sehir belediyesi Istanbul su ve kanalizasyon idaresi genel müdürlügü
(1988): Amac yesili ve maviyi kurtarmak.
T.C Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Emlak istimlak daire baskanligi yerlesmeler ve kentsel
dönüsüm müdürlügü, (2003): Galata kulesi cevresi ve Hendek caddesinin yeniden
gelistirilmesi yeni bir islev yüklenerek sehirsel yasama kazandirilmasi. Istanbul Teknik
Üniversitesi Cevre ve Sehircilik Uyg-ar Merkezi, Istanbul
Tutel, E. (2000): Halic: Dünden bugüne yedi tepeninin koynunda uyuyan büyülü cennet.
Dünya yayinlari, Istanbul
Tümer, S. (2003): Kentsel alanda islevini yitirmis sanayi tesislerinin dönüstürülme
sürecine yönelik bir model. Mimar Sinan University Master Thesis, Istanbul
Tümertekin, E. (1997): Istanbul Insan ve Mekan, Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yayinlari, Istanbul
Türkiye Sinayi Kalkinma Bankasi (1990): Maps of Istanbul: From the middle ages to the
present day. Istanbul
Yenal, E. (2000): Bir Kent Istanbul 101 yapi. Yapi Kredi Yayinlari, Istanbul
86
Yigitcanlar, T.( 2001): Kentsel Yenileme Olgusu ve Gelişim Süreci.Planlama Dergisi, no: 4,
Ankara
Warren J., Worthington J., Taylor S. (1998): Context: New buildings in Historic settings.
Bath Press plc. York, 15
Wiener, W. M. (1991): Istanbul’da erken dönem endüstri yapilari. Arkitekt magazine,no:6,
Istanbul
Wiener, W. M.(1998): Bizans’tan Osmanli’ya Istanbul Limani .Tarih Vakfi Yurt yayinlari,
Istanbul,1,6,11-13,44-47, 71,50-51,82-83,118,119
Web sites
http://goturkey.kultur.gov.tr/turizm_en.asp?belgeno=3862,04.2005
http://www.istanbulperahotels.com/pera/content.php3?id=8,04.2005
http://www.istanbulcityguide.com/history/body_carrier.htm
http://www.suomenlinna.fi/index.php?menuid=18&lang=eng
http://www.rmk-museum.org.tr/english/about/history.html
http://www.ibb.gov.tr/ibbtr/140/14010/kultur/eyupsultan.htm
http://www.khas.edu.tr/eng/khuhistory.php
http://www.answers.com/venice%20arsenal
http://www.thetis.it/UK/arsenale/arsenale.htm
http://www.rudi.net/bookshelf/ej/udq/75/northwest.cfm
87
VITA__________________________________________________A. Kaan Özgün
06.05-now Landscape architect, Urban Designer
Mcgregor + Partners, Sydney, Australia
10.04-04.05 • End of MLA program, Thesis topic “A shipyard transformation as
a catalyst in Golden Horn, Galata and its historical environs'
regeneration process” Anhalt University of Applied Sciencies,
Bernburg, Germany
05.04-07.04 Internship
WES & Partner landschapsarchitekten, Hamburg, Germany
• Competition Rathenauplatz-Goetheplatz-Rossmarkt Frankfurt am
Main
09.03-04.04 Internship
VHP stedebouwkundigen + architekten + landschapsarchitekten,
Rotterdam, Holland
• Designing a prototype of a bicycle-shelter.
• International idea competition-Hellenikon metropolitan park ,
Athens.
04.03-07.03 II.Semester Studio Project
Wageningen Harbour District Redevelopment Design,
Wageningen, Holland
• Collaboration between Wageningen Municapility and Hochschule
Anhalt
11.02-02.03 I.Semester Studio Project
Alternative Ideas for the IBA Fürst- Pückler Park and Cultural
Landscape of Bad Muskau, Bad Muskau, Germany
• Collaborative workshop between Hochschule Anhalt and Harvard
School of Design guided by Prof. Carl Steinitz
10.02 Hochschule Anhalt , Dessau, Germany
• MLA program(english)
07.02-08.02 Alessi , Milano, Italy
• Product design study for Alessi within a workshop
at Domus Academy.
01.02-07.02 Alp Architects ,Istanbul, Turkey.
• Gebze High Technology Institute main campus landscape and
landscape application projects.
10.01-12.01 Applicant in International Urban Design Idea Competition for
the port district of Izmir , Izmir, Turkey
07-08.01 Applicant in International Urban Design Competition for
Culture Park, Bursa, Turkey
• 2nd prize
09.95 – 06.01 Bilkent University Faculty of Fine Arts, Ankara, Turkey
• Bachelor Degree in ‘Landscape Architecture and Urban Design’
• Diploma Project; ‘Waterfront Design for Kadiköy / Istanbul’
• 3rd prize in senior studio ‘Baris Eyikan’ awards
• Internship in Tepe architecture and engineering firm