Tarihsel çevreyi korumanın Türkiye'ye özgü koşulları (İstanbul 1923-1973)

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, koruma kavramının Türk toplumunun kültürel söylemine katıldığı ondokuzuncu yüzyıl ortalarından, kurumlaşmasını tamamladığı 1970'lere kadar uzanan süreç boyunca İstanbul'da tarihsel çevrenin geçirdiği değişimleri, etkilendiği düşünülen ideolojik ve ekonomik öncelikler ile mimarlık ve kent planlamasındaki yönelişler bağlamında inceleyerek, Türkiye'ye özgü koşulların koruma etkinliği üzerindeki belirleyiciliğini ortaya koymaktır. Tarihsel çevrenin korunmasında karşılaşılan güçlükleri çözümlemek amacıyla, Türkiye'yi Batı toplumlarından farklılaştıran temel özellikler göz ardı edilmeden, belirlenen dönemlerde tarihsel kentin değişiminde etkili olan özgül unsurlar irdelenmiştir. Avrupa'da ve Türkiye'de korumanın kökenlerine kısaca değinildikten sonra, 1874- 1923 arasındaki elli yıl, tezin asıl konusu olan cumhuriyet sonrasındaki gelişmelere ışık tutmak üzere, sınırlı olarak ele alınmıştır. Hem kentleşme ve değişmenin, hem de korumaya ilişkin tartışma ve uygulamaların odağında yer alan İstanbul'da tarihsel çevrenin değişimi, 1923-1973 arasındaki elli yıl boyunca ve dört ayrı dönemde izlenmiştir. Zaman dilimlerini birbirinden ayırdeden nitelikler, iktisadi, siyasal ve toplumsal değişimler ve her bir dönem ile çakışan ayrı mimari eğilimlerdir. Dönemleri farklılaştıran özellikler, kültürel duyarlılıkları ve öncelikleri etkileyerek, tarihsel çevrenin değerlendirilme ölçütlerine de yansımıştır. Tarihsel yapılarla ilgili tutum, imar adı verilen tümel yapılanmada, koruma çabaları ile onları göz ardı eden uygulamalar bağlamında incelenmiştir. Soyut düşünce boyutundaki gelişmiş koruma anlayışı, somut uygulamaları denetlemek üzere koruma alanını yöneten yasalara, yönetmeliklere ve kararlara yansıtılmıştır. Ancak tarihsel çevrenin korunmasını özendirecek bir kültürel ortamın yokluğunda, sürekli ve tutarlı bir koruma yaklaşımı etkinleşememiştir. Tarihsel çevrenin siyasal ve ekonomik yararlılığı kültürel değerlerinin önüne geçmiş, uygulamaları yönlendirenler de uzmanlar yerine yöneticiler olmuştur. Eski eserleri kültürel değerleri için korumak üzere oluşturulan ilkeleri, kuralları ve kurumlan aşarak tarihsel çevrenin geleceğini belirleyen yöneticiler, korumaya karşı yenilemeye öncelik veren tavırlarını tutarlılıkla sürdürmüşlerdir. Denetimsizlik, yalnızca yeni kent parçalarının biçimlenmesini değil, tarihsel çevrenin korunmasını da bireysel çıkarlarla toplumsal yararın arasındaki çatışmanın konusu durumuna getirmiştir. Tüm yapı alanı gibi, tarihsel çevre de kamu yararına öncelik verilerek ve bilimsel ilkeler izlenerek düzenlenmek yerine, siyasal öncelikler ve bireysel çıkarlar doğrultusunda biçimlenmiştir. Sonuçta kuramsal düzlemde varılan yetkinlik ile uygulama alanında yaşanan etkinlik arasında koşutluk yerine karşıtlık yaratılmıştır.

The aim of this study is to determine factors specific to Turkey that provide an explanation for the inefficacy of conservation despite the sophistication attained in its conceptual, institutional, educational and legal groundwork. Istanbul has been selected as the example for tracing the changes in the approach to the conservation of the historical environment. Despite its temporary fall from favor when Ankara became the capital of the new Turkish Republic in 1923, Istanbul retained its significance as the focal point of controversies pertaining to planning and development as well as conservation. Its multi-layered cultural history and rich heritage have put it at the center of conflicts between old and new throughout its history. Also, Istanbul has always been the model followed by smaller cities and towns. The temporal span of the study has been designated as the period from 1923 to 1973, with a limited reference to the period 1874-1923. The concept of conservation, developed in Western Europe in the nineteenth century, was transferred to the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the century. 1874 is the date of the first legislation for conservation. After amendments in 1884 and 1906, it remained in force until 1973 when a new law was enacted. 1874-1923 is taken up as the formative years of conscious conservation activities, whereas, 1923-1973 is studied in detail as regards the development of theoretical approaches to conservation, its institutionalization and implementation. The latter period is divided into four time spans, each distinguished by slightly or radically different ideological and economic priorities which coincide with changing architectural tendencies. Attributes that characterize each period affect cultural inclinations and, in turn, influence the criteria for assessing the historical environment. Conservation of the historical environment was inspired by the West but, ironically, it gained impetus in the Ottoman Empire as a reaction against the pillage conducted by Western countries at archaeological sites in Anatolia. Initial attempts at conservation were aimed at keeping artifacts and remains of the Greek and Roman periods within the country. Later, the scope of the legislation was expanded to include the Islamic period. Meanwhile, Istanbul underwent major transformations as part of the reforms for westernization. Monuments were taken from the care of then- individual pious foundations to the collective responsibility of the ministry VI established for this purpose, an act which proved to be detrimental to their maintenance and repair. The traditional urban fabric was destructed as roads and railroads were opened through the historical center to accomodate vehicular traffic. The period between 1923-1938 is characterized by reformism, national developmentalism and the ascendency of the bureaucracy. In the strife for creating a contemporary nation-state, clashes occurred between the cultivation of a national identity and the embodiment of modern values. Initially, the First National Architecture Movement, which had appeared during the final years of the empire as a revival of classical Ottoman architecture, constituted a convenient means for supporting national identity. However, a sequence of reforms were conducted, some of them aimed at building an image of modernity, like the reforms for headdress and attire. In the years following 1927, the Modem Movement, or "cubic architecture" as it was called in Turkey, was readily adopted by the government to promote the image of modernism aspired after. As Ankara started being shaped by government buildings constructed in the new style, specifically Istanbul and generally historical buildings were neglected. Atatürk drew attention to their dilapidated state and demanded their upkeep in 1 93 1. The consequent measures taken to provide for their maintenance and repair, though not totally implemented, had lasting repercussions for the case for conservation. Historical buildings were endorsed as supporters of national identity and pride, therefore, rendered worthy of conservation for legitimazing the newly created state. Between 1938-1950, etatism of the single-party political system was paired with an economic model relying on the country's own resources. Nationalism, promoted by Germany and Italy and enhanced by the Second World War, found a favorable milieu also in Turkey. Its reflection in architecture was the Second National Architecture Movement, this time based on reviving valid characteristics of the traditional Turkish house. However, the attention focused on the Turkish house was not conducive to any efforts for the conservation of its remaining examples. The Prost plan for Istanbul, which was approved in 1938, introduced some principles for the conservation of the historical center. The plan was partially implemented by the Mayor Lütfi Kirdar as the first attempt of the republican government for the reconstruction of Istanbul. Multi-party regime, liberal economics, industrialization and rapid urbanization distinguish the period from 1950 to 1960. In these years, squattering and speculative housing construction flourished and development oblivious to planning decisions became commonplace. During an urban development operation personally conducted by Prime Minister Menderes, Istanbul lost a major portion of its traditional urban fabric besides numerous monuments. On the other hand, an exaggerated concern was shown for major religious monuments so that reactions to demolitions could be contained and religious sentiments of the population could be exploited for political purposes. The architecture of the period followed examples of the International Style imported from the USA. vn The period between 1960-1973 is characterized by democratization, planned development and economic growth. In this climate, ideologies were freely discussed, cultural identity was questioned and environmental concerns were cultivated. Concepts like historicism, contextualism and regionalism replaced the canons of the Modern Movement which were severely criticized. Within this framework, favorable conditions existed for the advance of conservation. Major steps were taken in providing a scientific basis for intervention in historic buildings and sites. Throughout 1874-1973, an enlightened minority in Turkey asserted a consciousness for conservation which was not far from opinions voiced in international forums. Yet, planning as well as conservation principles and regulations remained ineffectual while cities changed and sprawled. The solution offered to the problem has been to further relations with international institutions more devotedly than before and to adopt their standards more strictly than previously. However, conservation has not advanced but regressed since the 1970s when international charters, legal measures, guiding institutions and educational standards were followed faithfully. On the other hand, the conceptual development of conservation had already attained sophistication well before the 1970s. So, a correct diagnosis for the failure of conservation attempts calls for an analysis of conditions specific to Turkey. Historical buildings and sites are considered to be worthy of conservation for their historical and aesthetical values. In the Ottoman Empire, permanence had never been a characteristic of the physical environment, the tendency for renewal having always prevailed over that for preservation. Durability was justified only by continual utilization of buildings. Conservation of monuments, which had traditionally been a personal endeavor within the framework of pious foundations, was carried to the public domain in the nineteenth century and it became the responsibility of the state. In the early republican period, historical buildings were considered to be agents which strengthened national solidarity and legitimized the claim of the newly founded state over its land. In the 1950s, the government presided over the restoration of major mosques so that religious feelings of the people could be exploited for political ends. The potential of historic buldings to support tourism was discovered in the 1960s and priority was given to their utilization for touristic purposes. Even the new legislation for antiquities was finally passed in 1973 because of the pressing demands of tourism on historic buildings. Consequently, the appreciation of historical buildings was based on national sentiments and economical benefits rather than historical or aesthetical values. Thus, criteria for the assessment of the historical environment became political and economical rather than cultural. Public administrators became influential in deciding the fate of historical buildings despite the fact that starting with the 1910s, architects and councils responsible for conservation never ceased to stress their cultural value. Although all historical buildings were considered to be worthy of conservation, discrimination was made in setting priorities for maintenance and repairs. Scarce resources were saved for monumental examples while lesser buildings were easily vm sacrificed for opening roads and squares. Haussmann's approach of clearing the immediate environs of historical monuments to display them majestically at the center of formal squares was adopted by city administrators of the nineteenth century and continued to be the prevalent attitude until the 1980s. Therefore, relations of scale and proportion that existed between the monuments and the urban fabric that surrounded them was disrupted. Ceremonial open spaces and calculated urban vistas, which had not been characteristics of the traditional Turkish city, were introduced to the urban environment. The urban fabric made up of timber houses and winding streets is transitory by its very nature. Frequent fires destroyed major portions of the city and renewal became the accepted norm. In the Ottoman Empire, private ownership of land was not allowed until 1858. Accumulation of wealth aroused reaction and the house was not built to become a symbol of the status of its owner. Consequently, houses were not necessarily built to last. Starting with the 1930s, old houses were considered to be incompatible with the coveted new life style. Even the Second National Architecture Movement of the 1940s, which had the traditional Turkish house as its source of inspiration, was not conducive to the conservation of remaining examples. Istanbul remained in a derelict state for a long time. It suffered the consequences of fires in the nineteenth century, war and occupation in the beginning of the twentieth century, neglect in the 1930s, expropriations and demolitions in the 1950s. Its image ofdevastation qualified it only for a negative symbolism. On the other hand, Istanbul was not subjected to deliberate destruction which would have aroused reactionary care and protection. Consequently, the desire for renewal prevailed over any quest for preservation. From the nineteenth century onwards, city administrators and even planners aspired to liken Istanbul to Paris, Vienna, Bucarest and even New York. Paradoxes like East and West, old and new, national and international are inherent in Turkish culture. The historical heritage is squeezed into these binary oppositions. Conservation is deemed irreconcilable with development. The city becomes the arena of their competition. In Turkey, institutions responsible for conservation and development have a tradition of working against each other. The Directorate of Pious Foundations has been seen as a symbol of retrogression while municipalities are regarded as representatives of progress. Amongst those that have acted against the decisions of councils for conservation, there have not only been individuals whose gains were threatened, but also government institutions. Inconsistencies in legislative measures allow disputes to persist. Legislation for conservation has always coexisted with regulations favoring development. From 1912 onwards, municipalities have been given the right to pull down any building which is in danger of collapsing. They have liberally used this right to destroy even historical buildings which are under no such threat. The building legislations of 1933 and 1956 granted similar authority to municipalities which did not hesitate to exercise it on historic buildings despite numerous efforts by IX the Council of Monuments to spare them. Municipalities that ignore and defy conservation decisions are, in turn, disregarded by citizens seeking maximum profit from land use. Conservation becomes difficult when planning is ineffectual. The sophistication reached in the abstract theoretical approach to conservation has been reflected to laws, regulations and decisions that are supposed to govern interventions in the historical environment. But a consistent practice has failed to materialize in the field of conservation. The historical components are included in the total built environment which is allowed to be shaped according to the personal whims of administrators and the individual benefits of citizens.