CIP A 2003 XIX" h International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
have the administrative power do not need to initiate an
organizational transformation in this subject.
In spite of all those negative aspects there are some
municipalities like Safranbolu, Mugla, Amasya, Bergama,
Beypazari who have succeded in protecting the cultural
heritage. Departing from these examples, despite the counter
ones since 1970’s, one can deduce that the municipalities are
not against the protection of cultural characteristics which
give the settlements their identity; at least theoratically.
3. In our country, there are no technical personnel
like architects, city planners, geologists, civil engineers etc.
within the body of municipalities except in a few big cities.
Municipalities take technical decisions on a political basis
rather than regarding scientific necessities. In recent years,
this subject is again highly debated after the earthquakes and
floods. Municipalities do not have a financial resource to use
for conservation activities. Moreover, according to the
current laws they do not have the right to create new sources
or use the existing national / international ones for
conservation purposes, either.
4. Municipalities do not consider the implementation
of KIP as a total social, economic, physical “process” and
blame those as being insufficient. However, in urban sites as
they are the living pieces of the city, social and economic
planning comes before the physical planning. As long as the
municipalities do not take this subject as a process and
develop convenient tools none of the plans can be realized.
Local administrations (Governor, Local
Administration Representatives), which have an important
power to take decisions just like municipalities, do not have
any experience on conservation through their education. Even
when the whole potential of the settlement is dependent on
cultural heritage, the local administrations avoid developing
governmental or non governmental initiatives to protect this
heritage. In the recent past there had been some attempts to
take some precautions though none had been effective and
continous. But the support of local administrations is of
utmost importance.
The General Directorate of Pious Foundations
(VGM) which exist since 1935 is the third actor in the field
of conservation in Turkey. In spite of its 70 years of
experience VGM does not have the qualified staff and
equipment to use proper methodology and technics. It could
not form a school in itself thus; could not realize sustainable
and correct projects.
In fact all of the ministries, especially The Ministry
of Finance and Construction and Public Works, who possess
public buildings in the name of the state are much more
further to the concept of conservation both in terms of
institutional conciousness and organization. The decision
mechanisms are always misused and almost against
conservation.
Legal Framework:
Compared to the actors in implementation, the laws
of conservation in Turkey can be considered as a
comprehensive legislative basis. Moreover, it may be said
that this basis had developed in the 19 th century parallel to the
west and is sufficient in terms of its contents. However,
serious problems exist in the Housing Laws for the built
environment and administrative formation when the
municipalities or KB is concerned.
It is very important to restructure those institutions in
conservation according to contemporary necessities. KB who
is the primary power to protect the unique cultural heritage of
Turkey should be reinforced (Çahin Güçhan, 2003). The
situation presents similar problems for the municipalities as
well. Recently, as the new legislation for the municipalities is
discussed, the necessary aspects which should take place in
the laws can be listed as such: Conservation should be within
the job definition of the municipalities as well as KB and the
responsibility should be shared. Municipalities should have
conservation specialists and provide continous education to
those. They must be given more freedom to find financial
sources and use international sources. While municipalities
are provided with opportunities for the development of new
housing, those opportunities should be used for the renewal
and protection of the existing environment (historical houses,
squatter areas, low quality dwellings), too.
Parallel to the restructuring of the institutions, laws
about housing should be revised, too. As opposed to the most
of the European countries, historical / traditional houses are
not considered in the housing laws in Turkey. Looking at the
number of sites, it is obvious that quite a number of historical
houses exist within each settlement. While the resources of
the state is used for the construction of new dwellings, the
owners of the registered buildings are punished. The
legislation should be revised in favour of the registered
dwellings and encouraging choices should be created for the
owners of those buildings like in many western countries.
2. CASE STUDY ON ANTAKYA:
Departing from the organization and problems related
to conservation, the technical aspects and necessities of
conservation are defined below in the light of a case study on
Antakya.
2.1. Survey:
The Zenginler Quarter of Antakya was studied by the
Graduate Program of Restoration, Department of
Architecture in Middle East Technical University in 2002-
2003 Academic Year as a semester project*. After the pre
survey study, a survey was carried out between 13-23
October 2002 to define the physical, economic and social
profile of the historical tissue. Within this process, 223
building lots including 91 traditional lots were investigated
including 420 buildings. In the following three months the
gathered data was classified, evaluated and decisions were
defined to protect and develop the historical tissue.
Zenginler Quarter was chosen for a number of
reasons: Its well preserved state as compared to the rest of the
city, the inclusion of commercial, religious and public
buildings within the tissue as well as the traditional houses,
its closeness to the historical commercial center and the
existence of common problems shared by the rest of the
historical tissue.
Antakya had been inhabited since the antique period.
Especially during the Roman period its population reached
600.000 people and it became the third metropolis of the
Empire. The importance of Antakya incresed with the spread
of Christianity as it was the second pilgrimage center after
Jerusalem. However between 500-600 A.D. the earthquakes
hit the city and until the Memlukids it was deserted. After the
Seljukid period, Antakya was ruled by the Ottomans until the
19''’ century. Following the First World War, Antakya
remained under the rule of the French Government for 20
years. In 1939, Antakya joined the Republic of Turkey.
Physical Characteristics of Zenginler Quarter
Zenginler Quarter is located on a rather flat portion of
the historical center, between the Asi River and Habib Neccar
Mountain. The quarter is composed of traditional houses with
courtyards which constitute the only open areas in this tissue.
The open areas to the other side of the river are the gardens
of the public buildings and the municipality park. The most
important part of the dwellings; the high courtyard walls
define the streets together with the buildings.
