CONSERVATION PLANNING in ISTANBUL'S ... - RehabiMed

TOWARDS ‘GREEN’ CONSERVATION PLANNING in ISTANBUL’S HISTORIC
PENINSULA
Dr. Arzu Kocabas
Associate Professor
Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of City and Regional Development,
Meclis-i Mebusan Caddesi, Findikli / Istanbul 34427 Turkey and Visiting Research
Fellow at London South Bank University
kocabaa45@gmail.com
This paper analyses recent urban conservation planning in the Historic Peninsula of
Istanbul, with reference to the evolving goals and concepts which underpin urban
conservation. These concepts are often contested but they provide a useful framework
for the analysis presented in this paper.
Evolving concepts and practice of urban conservation
Until the late 1960s the longstanding physical goal of preserving the historic urban
fabric emphasised the preservation monumental buildings. Then the scope widened to
give increasing emphasis to the conservation of groups of buildings in Conservation
Areas in a diversity of historic neighbourhoods.
In Turkey the 1983 Act provided the legal basis for the designation of Conservation
Areas. But in Istanbul progress was very limited during the 1970s and 1980s. Many of
the monumental buildings of the Historic Peninsula were preserved. But apart from
some local success stories destruction and decay continued in historic
neighbourhoods, through lack of resources and political support for conservation
(Kocabas, 2005).
From the 1980s the social dimension of conservation became increasingly important.
The issue of ‘conservation for whom’ emerged as a contentious issue. In many historic
residential neighbourhoods the wealthy original residents had moved out and their
spacious old houses had been subdivided into small apartments which were let to poor
people living in overcrowded conditions. In many such neighbourhoods enterprising
individual home-owners purchased and renovated properties in a process that led to
gentrification - the displacement of poor tenants by higher income groups buying
modernised apartments in what gradually became fashionable neighbourhoods.
Some policy makers and academics are content with this outcome, arguing that
although recent residents were displaced, the process of conserving the physical fabric
resulted in the return of relatively wealthy people with the resources to maintain the
historic fabric. Others take the view that it is socially regressive for conservation to be
achieved at the expense of displacing the poor. They argue that conservation planning
should be a participatory process in which the housing needs of existing residents are
taken into account to minimise gentrification – a view supported by UNESCO, the EU
and other international organisations.
.
In Istanbul gentrification emerged in the late 1980s in a variety of historic
neighbourhoods, particularly in the Cihangir and Galata neighbourhoods of the 19 th
century historic core north of the Golden Horn. But in the Historic Peninsula itself there
was little demand from ‘gentrifiers’ – there was no sense of any of the neighbourhoods

in the area moving up-market. However, many buildings were lost to demolition (often
to provide informal parking lots) when it was not possible to find economically viable
uses for them.
In many countries a parallel and interlocking development of conservation planning
was the increasing attention given to the economic dimension – the issue of new uses
for old buildings. In this context conservation became inextricably linked with tourism
and the creation of jobs, particularly in central neighbourhoods where old buildings
could be converted to shops (often boutiques) and small hotels. This process could
also lead to displacement of the poor. However, it could be argued that this was at
least partially offset by the creation of jobs which benefited local people and it was
argued that there would be more political support for conservation when what was
historically had been seen as an elite pre-occupation could be linked to urban
economic development and job creation for lower income groups. Nonetheless, there
are many circumstances in which economic development interests have been allowed
too much influence and tourism has combined with gentrification to all but destroy the
historic built environment, in both physical and social terms.
In Turkey the Tourism Promotion Act (1982) provided the legal basis for state support
for the development of tourist facilities. But this enabled legal redevelopment projects
to take place in the historic city, such as skyscraper blocks, which were the antithesis
of the outcomes being sought by conservation planning (Ekinci, 1993, 2003). In the
following year Turkey signed the Convention on the Protection of World Cultural and
Natural Heritage and embodied its provisions in the 1983 Conservation Act, thus
introducing an international dimension to conservation debates in Istanbul. This
legislation also gave metropolitan municipalities the responsibility for producing
statutory and legally binding Conservation Oriented Development Plans (CODP). In
1985, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre included four zones of the Historic
Peninsula on the World Heritage List. But was not until 1995 that these areas were
designated Conservation Areas and not until 2003 that a CODP for the Historic
Peninsula was finally approved. The weak conservation activity during the 1980s and
1990s has been shown to be significantly due to the development orientation of the
Mayors of Istanbul (Kocabas, 2000 and 2006).
The long awaited CODP argued for the long-term decentralisation of many nonresidential
uses – offices, factories, hospitals. This would enable the rehabilitation of a
minority of the remaining traditional buildings to be accompanied by substantial
housing-led redevelopment. The dominant redevelopment component would deliver
replica traditional dwellings at medium densities, attract higher and middle income
families to the area, achieve the earthquake resistant standards which are so
necessary in the earthquake vulnerable Historic Peninsula and by re-producing the
existing building lines would provide an appropriate setting for many historic
monuments in the area.
This approach was controversial from the outset, not least because it was in conflict
with the emergence in Istanbul of the concept of ‘integrated urban conservation’.
This approach emphasises the need for conservation planning to systematically link the
physical, social and economic dimensions of conservation
and their complex and often contradictory interrelationships. This approach was applied
in Istanbul by a major UNESCO funded study – the Istanbul Historic Peninsula
Conservation Study (Gulersoy, et. al., 2004) which established the principles of this
approach for the Historic Peninsula and prepared advisory Conservation Area Plans for
key neighbourhoods. In contrast to the CODP, this approach argued that the protection
of the remaining authentic historic environment – the historic buildings in their current
setting – should be the first priority. Thus the overall aim should be to emphasise

ehabilitation, rather than the decentralisation of jobs and major residential
redevelopment, and the improvement of the housing conditions of existing residents,
rather than a programme of planned gentrification.
Not surprisingly, the work to implement the CODP in recent years has been mired in
controversy. Initially, the leading edge of this work was the Museum City Project which
was the responsibility of the Greater Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (GIMM).This
project used historical maps and plans, and street by street surveys to establish a
digital record of the original buildings and layout of the Ottoman Historic Peninsula. But
before the action plans to re-create this environment got to implementation stage, the
project was closed down.
By default it is the Renewal Areas being prepared and implemented by the Mayor of
Fatih which are taking forward the ‘conservation’ of key neighbourhoods in the Historic
Peninsula. These were based on the use of a new law 5366 which gave District Mayors
the powers and resources to implement Renewal Area Plans. However, the powers of
compulsory purchase have been used to ensure the demolition of Sulukule, the oldest
Romany settlement in Europe. This planned gentrification has re-located the Romany
community to an estate some 40km away, where the rents are unaffordable and the
community has disintegrated. The fate of the residents of Sulukule has become a focal
point for protest against further Renewal Area plans elsewhere in the Historic
Peninsula.
All this has been happening in the context of the pressure being placed on the Turkish
authorities to prepare and implement an Area Management Plan for the Historic
Peninsula World Heritage Sites. The UNESCO threat in 2003 to place the Historical
Peninsula on the list of World Cultural Heritage in Danger has focused the minds of
decision makers. Successive two year monitoring visits have prompted action. But the
progress towards integrated conservation remains inhibited by the unresolved
rehabilitation versus redevelopment debate and the fragmentation of planning for the
Historic Peninsula. However, as a result of a long drawn out set of court proceedings,
not untypical of the operation of the Turkish planning system, the CODP for the Historic
Peninsula was annulled in November 2009. Thus in early 2010 there is no legally
binding framework for urban conservation planning in the Historic Peninsula.
From integrated conservation to sustainable, low carbon conservation?
The struggle to develop and implement an Istanbul version of integrated conservation
continues against the backcloth of Istanbul being European City of Culture 2010. The
preparations for the year have been controversial, not least in terms of how the central
government, local government and NGOs should work together. But whatever the
outcome, the ECOC 2010 process is giving a higher profile to the issue of urban
conservation in Istanbul.
In this context it seems appropriate to suggest a new impetus for urban conservation
planning – the need to link the continuing development of the integrated approach to
the urban dimensions of the climate change agenda, by developing the concept and
practice of sustainable, low carbon conservation.
In the aftermath of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the concept of sustainable
development began to shape the urban agenda and within not much more than a
decade there was a consensus in developed countries on the need for planning to
support the development of sustainable cities and towns. This means involving the
three interrelated dimensions of providing:

• the physical infrastructure (offices, transport, housing, social and community
facilities) necessary for sustainable urban economic development which creates
wealth and jobs;
• promoting increased social equality and a fairer society by ensuring that all social
groups share in this prosperity; and
• minimising the adverse environmental impact of cities, by reducing pollution and
waste.
In this context urban conservation was promoted as a key component of planning for
sustainable urban development because of its role of safeguarding the historic fabric
for future generations. The inter-generational ethos of urban conservation chimed well
with this redefinition of the role of city and regional planning. However, whilst the
rationale for urban conservation planning has been strengthened in this way, its
content and methods are only now explicitly embracing the urban dimension of the
climate change agenda, which focuses on the need to move to reducing CO2
emissions from cities and towns. Thus in the UK central government is emphasising
the importance of this issue (EH, 2007). The London Borough of Haringey is one of
several local authorities in England that has developed guidelines for the integration of
micro-renewables technology, such as solar panels, in conservation schemes (2009).
What would be involved in retrofitting the Historic Peninsula? In practical terms, at the
level of individual buildings it would include:
• measures to achieve high levels of insulation to be included rehabilitation
specifications, and high standards of energy efficient design (such as ‘passivhaus’)
to be achieved for any replacement buildings in conservation areas; and
• measures to supply energy from renewable sources, from micro-generation
installed in/on buildings (e.g. solar panels, ground source heat pumps) or at the
conservation area/neighbourhood level – eg. combined heat and power and the
use of bio-mass fuels.
At the neighbourhood level this could include ensuring lower carbon emissions from
all public buildings e.g. schools, hospitals and mosques, restrictions on car usage,
planting trees to absorb CO2, sustaining traditional fresh food supplies through street
markets, reducing per capita water consumption and improving waste management.
There are some straws in the wind. Turkey has signed the Kyoto Treaty and in the not
too distant future will adopt national carbon reduction targets which will require major
reductions in emissions from the housing stock, including historic housing. In Istanbul
the GIMM is working with an international NGO EMBARQ on a Historic Peninsula Low
Emissions project to reduce air pollution caused by cars.
The need is for feasibility study/demonstration project(s) which would identify the
policies, methods and techniques to ensure that conservation not only preserves the
historic built environment and meets economic and social objectives, but also meets
environmental objectives by reducing the carbon emissions from historic buildings and
neighbourhoods. This additional ‘climate change dimension’ is essential if genuine
‘sustainable conservation’ is to be achieved. The launch of such a feasibility study
would be a highly appropriate contribution to ECOC 2010.
Note
This paper has drawn on an ongoing international comparative study of conservation in
Istanbul and London, currently being undertaken with Dr. Bob Jarvis and Professor
Mike Gibson of London South Bank University (LSBU).

References
EH (2007) Climate change and the historic environment, London.
Ekinci, O. (1993) ‘The law of the promotion of tourism: the plundering of Istanbul,
İstanbul’93 selections, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Ekinci, O. (2003) ‘Istanbul’un sur ici sınavı’, Cumhuriyet, 21.8.2003.
Gulersoy, N. Z. et. al. (2004) Istanbul project: Istanbul Historic Peninsula conservation
study, UNESCO WH Project, Istanbul: ITU, Urban and Environmental Planning and
Research Centre.
Kocabas, A. (2000) Urban conservation planning and development outcomes in
conservation areas in central Istanbul and central London: 1969-1989, in print PhD
thesis, London: London South Bank University.
Kocabas, A. (2006) ‘Urban Conservation in Istanbul: Evaluation and Reconceptualization’,
Habitat International, A Journal of the Study of Human Settlements,
Elsevier.
LBH (2009) Use of Renewable Energy Systems: Historic Buildings and Conservation
Areas, London.