TOWARDS GREEN CONSERVATION PLANNING in ISTANBUL S HISTORIC PENINSULA

Transcription

1 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 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

2 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

3 rehabilitation, 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 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 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:

4 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 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).

5 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, 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: , 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.