Architecture/Restoration Unit

As a part of the Ottoman modernization process, new regulations and institutions for urban management started to be established in Istanbul. This paper handles the 18th century as an initial period for these urban reforms and studies how the built environment was regulated at the time. The regulations of 18th century which were based on the occasion of natural disasters and public dispute will be evaluated via official archive documents and narratives. 18th century Istanbul's general urban fabric was formed with organic narrow streets and small timber houses. With the ethno-religious diversity embedded to this picture, the city had a complex and fragile character. Numerous fires causing massive destructions raised a need for precautions. Several orders related to construction systems, building height, size of building elements like eaves and projections were issued. On the other hand, the fact that urban constituents like ownership were not defined clearly in the modern sense made public dispute very common. Apart from the complexity of the built environment, most of the conflicts arose from the social structure of Istanbul which was comprised of various ethno-religious groups. There was a clear distinction of Muslims and non-Mus-lims in the urban realm as they had different building regulations, until the issuing of the Tanzimat Firman. The regulations of the 18th century was based on cases, rather than being comprehensive generalized rules for the urban fabric and thus had a more proscriptive nature rather than prescriptive.

Starting with the declaration of Tanzimat Firman in 1839, a systematic transformation in different fields, such as administration, law, taxation, property rights, education, urban planning and public works was initiated, which triggered the regulation of urban space as a tool for achieving a modern state. This paper focuses on the formation of urban regulations in the 19th century and questions their reflection in the urban space based on the case of Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman State. The period between 1820–1900 is chosen, during which nine regulations were enacted concerning the buildings and the streets. During this period, the building regulations were tried to be systematized and following the establishment of the necessary urban administrative bodies, they were able to be applied in some districts in Istanbul. Although the building regulations were enacted with the purpose to transform the whole city, they could only be implemented in certain areas, the most prestigious neighborhoods such as Galata and Pera, due to financial and administrative restrictions.

1839'da Tanzimat Fermanı'nın ilanından sonra yönetim, hukuk, vergi, mülki haklar, eğitim, kentsel planlama ve belediye hizmetleri gibi farklı alanlarda sistematik bir değişim başlamıştır. Bu durum, modern bir devlet oluşumuna bir araç olarak kent mekânını düzenleme sürecini de be-raberinde getirmiştir. Bu makale, 19. yüzyılda kentsel düzenlemelerin oluşum süreçlerine odaklanmakta ve İstanbul örneği üzerinden bunların kent mekânındaki yansımalarını irdelemektedir. Bu inceleme için yapılara ve sokaklara yönelik dokuz adet düzenlemenin yayınlandığı 1820–1900 aralığı seçilmiştir. Bu dönemde, yapı düzenlemeleri sistematize edilmeye çalışılmış ve gerekli yönetim birimleri kurulması sayes-inde İstanbul'un bazı bölgelerinde hayata geçirilmeleri mümkün olmuştur. Her ne kadar yapı düzenlemeleri tüm kente uygulanmak üzere yayınlanmışsalar da, finansal ve idari kısıtlamalar nedeni ile Galata ve Pera gibi belirli bölgelerde gerçekleştirilebilmiştirler.

This paper focuses on the urban planning challenges of the pre-modern era in Istanbul. This period is considered as the preparatory phase for the urban modernization in the 19 th century. The method of resolving the local planning issues by the central authorities defined the upcoming modern planning concepts. The building codes issued in the 18 th century evolved into an urban law in 1880s, conceiving the urban realm as a whole, opposed to the case oriented approach of the pre-modern period. Throughout the pre-modern period, natural disasters were one of the main issues in Istanbul's urban life as major fires occurred frequently and the earthquakes devastated the citizens. In a city with an organic street network and timber framed buildings, fire was the main threat. Therefore, the authorities were continuously challenged to reconstruct the city with new urban approaches, trying to mitigate fire risks by issuing codes for building construction throughout the 18th century. Although most of the regulations were concerned with residential areas, there were some documents addressing commercial areas as well. The main commercial area of Istanbul was the Historic Peninsula as it housed the main ports for landing goods. The goods were then transferred to khans-major commercial buildings that would house many rooms organized around a courtyard-and shops. The khans were not only used for storage, but also housed single men like porters and boatmen. In most cases we see that the khans and shops were not allowed to be built from timber, with the exception of financial constraints. However the imperial order issued in 1731 contradicted with them by banning the construction of masonry khans. The contradiction of these consecutive orders lied in the history of urban revolts the capital faced in 18 th century. From 1750s until 1826-the abolishment of the Janissary Corps, the main army-five upheavals performed by urban crowds of Istanbul threatened the central state, resulting in dethroning of sultans and assassination of many government officials. The construction of masonry khans did not serve the purpose of the government, because the shopkeepers and khan residents sometimes joined Janissaries, gathering in masonry khans in large groups and defending themselves in these robust structures. These khans would house thousands of men migrated to Istanbul for work enabling a sustainable financial system for them through collective living. Through many documents we know that the khans offered a closed system for its residents as some khans would house small shops for food and there would be someone responsible for daily needs and organization of the life in the rooms. In the traditional urban history narratives of Istanbul, there is a tendency to imagine that the city was distributed into compartments: residential and commercial areas, administrative and religious complexes… However through khans we comprehend that Istanbul had a more complex structure. We can see that the famous commercial areas of Istanbul like Mahmudpaşa was also one of the most crowded residential areas. Throughout their story in the 18 th century, we see that the authorities were undecided about the endurance of khans. As massive urban elements and major commercial buildings there were to be protected from fire, but as residential structures housing immigrants that became primary elements of urban revolts, they were not to be sustained. Despite the authorities' contradiction in endurance of these massive structures; the khans survived until today and in a way there are the symbol of resistance to natural disasters and authorities' suppression towards immigrants.