INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE IN THE URBAN IDENTITY AND MEMORY AXIS

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

bakers were made from there. The owner of Unkapanı, who was also one of the assistants
to the kadi of Istanbul, would be there all day to make the necessary inspections, check
the prices, keep the records of the wheat coming to the pier and ensure the distribution of
the wheat among bakers. The amount of wheat received, its price and how much it was
distributed to whom was recorded in a book. Sometimes, ships coming from Marmara
unloaded their cargo directly to the mills in Göksu, and the wheat was ground here and sent
to Unkapanı and distributed to the tradesmen as flour (Olivier, 1977).

The first bridge that allows the passage to the opposite shore of the Golden Horn
connecting both sides was established in 1836 between Unkapanı and Azapkapı. Historical
sources state that the first bridge was on rafts. This bridge with wooden structure built in the
shipyard was opened to transportation on September 3, 1836 and was named “Hayratiye”
because of the lack of toll fee. The first iron bridge built by the French in September 1872
served between Galata and Eminönü until 1912. Between 1912 and 1936, it was moved to
the Unkapanı-Azapkapı axis and served here until the construction of the Atatürk Bridge.
Today, the bridge named Atatürk Bridge and serving since 1940 was built by a group of
German companies. 170 The appearance of the Unkapanı district was completely changed
after 1964 with the construction of today’s Unkapanı pass (Mantran, 1990). Demolitions
were made, a road junction was created with under and overpasses, and the transportation
and passage function of the district prevented its commercial function. The district was
no longer a residential area. The timber manufacturers at the entrance of Abdülezel Pasha
Street were moved to another location.

Today, the only relation of Unkapanı, which was the main center of flour and grain
trade in ancient times, with the word “flour” is only its name. With the construction of
the intersection that distributes the traffic of the Unkapanı Bridge in 1987, the Food Items
Wholesalers Bazaar (Gıda Maddeleri Toptancıları Çarşısı) has also removed from the area.
Unkapanı district, which was the commercial district and port of the past, has become a
traffic intersection and road junction today. The coast, where large flour warehouses and
various grain storages have spread until yesterday, now extends as a large park (Tutel, 2000).

Photo 3. Mill buildings in Istanbul in the 19th century
Source: Seçer, (2002).

299

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Unkapanı mill history

Since the Byzantine period in Istanbul, Unkapanı region has developed as a place
where wheat trade was made. Therefore, many large and small mills and furnaces were
established here. In the 19th century, mills operating with other power sources left their places
to large facilities operating with steam or electricity, including other machinery. One of these
large facilities is the Unkapanı Mill established in Unkapanı.

According to Müller-Wiener, there are six steam-powered mills in Istanbul. These
mills are located in Paşalimanı, Kasımpaşa, Göksu, Ayvansaray and two of them in Unkapanı.
It is mentioned that there is no information about the location and architectural form of the
mills other than the mills in Unkapanı. “The mills in Unkapanı resemble the old English mills
with their four or five storey structure and they were probably formed under their influence.
In these, building parts and silos with grinding equipment inside were sometimes side by side
and sometimes more or less parallel to each other. The boiler and power plant were located in
low-rise buildings standing apart…” (Müller Wiener,1998)

It is known that six mills operating with steam energy were located in Paşalimanı,
Kasımpaşa, Göksu, Ayvansaray and Unkapanı at the end of the 19th century (Photo 3). There
are two mills in Unkapanı, Corpi and Unkapanı Mill (Müller-Winner, 1998) Today, only
three of the six mills, Paşalimanı, Kasımpaşa and Unkapanı Mills have survived. Paşalimanı
Mill, one of the largest mills in Istanbul, was established in 1858 according to the 1913-1915
industrial census, and lost its mill function since 1940 (Divan,1984). Kasımpaşa Mill, on the
other hand, was given a construction permit in 1852, and started to work with electric motors
in the early 1900s. Therefore, it is one of the first mills to adapt to new technology. The mill
structure, which has been discontinued since 1982, is still not used (Ezgeç, 1998).

Unkapanı Mill’s construction permission was issued in 1870; at first it was owned
privately, then it was seized by the state and operated for a while. All machines used in the mill
were brought from England. Unkapanı Mill, which consists of many buildings and has a large
complex, has two chimneys. The mill building, additional buildings and chimneys are clearly
visible in the Istanbul silhouette photographs of late 19th century.

The mill was sold by the state in 1940 and operated again by private ownership. During
this period, it suffered a fire and was later sold to Public Stores (Umumi Mağazalar). During the
construction of the Istanbul Textile Manufacturers Bazaar (İstanbul Manifaturacılar Çarşısı),
the main building of the complex, the mill building, was demolished. With the auction held in
the 1980s, the Commodity Exchange bought Unkapanı Mill and rented it out as a parking lot.

In several maps from 19th century, it is observed that the Unkapanı Mill belongs to the
government. In the city map from 1912, the plan of the Unkapanı Mill was demonstrated in
detail and was named as “Beylik Mill”. In early 1900s, it was also indicated as “Beylik Mill”
in the maps published by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. In the maps of J. Pervititch in 1930, the
Unkapanı Mill was named as “Beldiye Mill” (Photo 4). As heard from the people living in
Unkapanı for long years, bread is produced from the wheat which is let inside the Unkapanı
Mill. Therefore; it is known that there have been several storages, furnace building, dormitories,

300

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 4. Unkapanı Değirmeni on the maps of the City dated 1912, J. Pervititch, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi
Source: Seçer, (2002)

cistern and chimneys in the mill complex in addition to the mill building. In the photograph
of the skyline of İstanbul taken late 19th century, the mill building, additional buildings and
chimneys can be seen clearly. Again, the photographs taken by M. Architect Hüster Tayla in
1970s provide details about the final condition of the Unkapanı Mill before it was destroyed.
However, the original mill building was destroyed during the construction of the blocks for
İstanbul Linendrapers’ Bazaar (İMÇ).

Location and Environmental Features

Unkapani Mill locates on the place with plot no 515 in Yavuz Sinan District within
the borders of Eminonü town. The İMÇ Blocks locates in the northwest side, Hoca Halil
Mosque locates in the west side, Unkapanı Değirmeni street locates in the northeast side
and Yeni Hayat street locates in the southeast of the Mill.

The oldest documents related to the Unkapanı Mill are the city maps from 1912
and the maps published by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi in the same period. The plan of the
building was demonstrated in detail in both maps and the Mill was named as “Beylik
Mill”. The Unkapanı Mill is also demonstrated on the maps of J. Pervititch from 1930 and
it was mentioned as “Beldiye Mill” in there (Photo 4).

301

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Photo 5. Unkapanı Mill, 1982.
Source:Taç Vakfı, (1982)

Architectural Features

In accordance with the details obtained from the photographs of the Unkapanı
Mill from the late 19th century and from the city maps of J. Pervititch, Unkapanı Mill is a
complex building. Therefore, it is inadequate to call it only a mill building. The Unkapanı
Mill complex has a main mill building, storage buildings, a management building, a
furnace, a dormitory, stores, chimneys and a cistern. Additionally, this great complex also
has passageways connecting the buildings each other and rail systems enabling the products
to be carried (Photo 5). When the old maps and current plan structure is analysed, it is
observed that the Unkapanı Mill has 4 entrance doors. It was discovered that the wheat
accepted in the Unkapanı Port, carried inside from the door (K02) on the northeast side of
the mill and brought to the storages through the light railway axle inside the complex.

Mill Building

The main mill building inside the complex has five floors with a saddle roof and
a triangular pediment as other steam-operated mill buildings constructed in İstanbul in
late 19th century. When the Kasımpaşa Mill and Paşalimanı Mill which were constructed
in the same period are analysed, it can be observed that they have similar architectural
features with the Unkapanı Mill (Photo 6).

Their walls are constructed with alternating bricks and iron reinforced wooden
runners were used for flooring. When the industrial buildings constructed in the relevant
period are analysed, it can be observed that they all have a common language and identity.
A few sources could be founded related to the project of the building. Therefore, the
building plan can only be estimated as a result of the analysis of its current condition and

302

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 6. Unkapanı Mill, Kasımpaşa Mill and Paşalimanı Mill views
Source: Hüsrev Tayla, (1970)- Füsun Seçer Kariptaş, (2008)

of the sources which can be accessed. The mill building is a rectangular building from
northwest to southeast (D01). The building has 5 floors. The northeast side of the mill
building is 34 m, the southwest side of it is 35 m, the northwest and southeast sides of
it are 18 meters each. The base area is 650 m2. Since the only source obtain information
related to the height of the mill building is the photographs of the mill taken in 19th
century, it was not possible to obtain net results about it.

Furnace Building
There is a furnace building right at the corner of the Unkapanı Mill building
complex (Photo 7). The furnace building is a square building from northeast to southwest
consisting of three sections (B01, B02 and B03). The northeast side of the building is 30
m, the southeast side of it is 32 m, the northwest side of it is 33 m and the southwest side
of it is 31 m. The base area of it is approximately 1000 650 m2. The storey height obtained
from the traces from the building near the furnace building is 8.80 m (Seçer, 2002).
The middle part of the building (B02) is connected with the storage building (C01)
and the service building (B04) and other sections near it (B01 and B03) are connected
with the yard. Those sections are connected with the yard through the archways and the
number of the archways is 8 for both sides. Breads are produced from the milled wheat in
the furnace. A chimney (B05) is observed inside the service section and the baking works
are estimated to be performed there (Seçer, 2002).
The single-storey furnace building was constructed with metal roof, steel columns
and alternating brick walls. The building consisting of three sections is square building
with approximately 1000 m2 in size from northeast to southwest. The middle part of the
building consisting of three sections is connected with storages and service buildings and
the sections near it are connected with the yard. There is a chimney inside the furnace
building and baking works are estimated to be performed there.

303

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Photo 7. Unkapanı mill building survey and restitution
Source: Seçer, (2002)

Storage Buildings

It was determined as a result of the analyses conducted on the old photographs and
on-site examinations that the Building A is storage and dormitory, the Building C01 is
storage and management building, the Buildings D02 and D04 are storage buildings in the
Unkapanı Mill. There are two 2- and 4-storey additional buildings and a furnace building
near the mill building (Photo 8). The four-storey building which was used as a storage
was constructed with iron reinforced wooden runners, alternating brick walls, triangular
pediment and saddle roof like the mill building. The two-storey storage building has the
same structural features and also has a mezzanine with steel columns.

304

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 8. Unkapanı mill restitution section.
Source: Seçer, (2002)

Other storage building locates near the furnace building and was used as a storage
and management building. The building whose ground floor was used a storage and upper
floors were used as management office has a square plan.

Building A
The ground floor of the Building A in the southeast of the Unkapanı Mill complex
was used as a storage and the upper floor of it was used as a dormitory. This building has
a cistern and a chimney. In the map of J Pervititch from 1930, a chimney and a cistern can
be observed clearly. This two-storey building, whose ground floor was used as a storage
and upper floor was used as a dormitory, has a cistern on the edge (AZ07). There are stairs
in A04 connecting the storage and dormitory. AZ03 is a place for a warden. AZ01, AZ02,
AZ05 and AZ06 were used as storage areas. And A101, A102, A103, A105, A106, and
A107 were used as dormitories. As a result of the on-site examinations, it is thought that
A08 was used as a storage with mezzanine. However, it was observed that the mill complex
has a second chimney there in the map of J Pervititch from 1930 (Seçer Kariptaş, 2013).
The building was separated into 8 sections and they see the yard. They have arched
doors and windows to the yard. This building, whose ground floor was used as a storage
and upper floor was used as a dormitory for the workers, has an approximate base area
of 500 m2. There is a gable wall in approximate 13m height on the stairs of the building.
There are traces on the floor indicating that there was a light railway passing by the
building. It is estimated that the milled flour was carried and stored through this light
railway. The light railway was covered with cantilever which was designed to link to the

305

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

building. The mill complex has 4 entrance doors. The wheat accepted to the Unkapanı
Port was passed through the mill from the door seeing Haliç and brought to the storage
through light railway axle in the complex. Then the wheat was taken outside from other
door through the same light railway when they turned into flour (Seçer Kariptaş, 2011).

Building C01

The biggest one of the storage buildings is the building which locates at the centre
of the yard, is next to the furnace building and was used as a storage and management
building. This building has a rectangular structure from northeast to southwest. Its
southeast side is 31 m, northwest side is 30 m, northeast side is 10m and southwest
side is 9 m; and its base area is approximately 300 m2 (Photo 9). As a result of the
on-site examinations, it is estimated that the upper floor of this building was used as a
management office.

Photo 9. Building C01, 1970
Source: Tayla, (1970).

Buildings D02 and D04
The area of the Building D02 in the size of 13 x 15 m is approximately 200 m2.
There are 4 arched doors on the southwest side of the building. The Building D04 is a
rectangular storage building with a cantilever in front of it.

306

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Lodgement Building

There is a 3-storey lodgement building with saddle roof on the side seeing the
Unkapanı Değirmeni Street (E). The base area of the building; whose northeast and
northwest sides are 5 m each, the southeast side is 15m, and the southwest side is 16m; is
approximately 80 m2. The lodgement building is one of the sections added to Unkapanı
Mill later. This two-storey building has vaulted floors, saddle roof and alternating brick
walls. It has management sections, single-storey wheat silos and stores. The three-storey
lodgement building with saddle roof sees Unkapanı Değirmeni Street. It has one of the main
entrance doors of the mill on the ground floor. EZ01 is the entrance, EZ02 is the storage,
EZ03 is the stairs, EZ04 is the storage and EZ05 is the storage on the ground floor of the
lodgement building. E101 and E105 are rooms, E102 and E104 are rooms + restrooms and
E103 is stairs on the 1st floor of the building. E201 is a room, E202 is a room, E203 is stairs,
E204 is room + restroom and E205 is a room on the 2nd floor (Seçer, 2002).

Cinema Building

There is alsı a cinema building seeing Atlamataşı Road and Yeni Hayat Street
in the mill complex (G01). (Seçer Kariptaş, 2009). It is known that it was constructed
approximately 40 years after the mill buildings were constructed. It was indicated as a
garage in the map of J. Pervititch from 1930.

Service Places

Building F

The Building F from the service places is a single-storey building seeing the
Unkapanı Değirmeni Street. F01 is a guardhouse next to the main entrance door of the
mill complex. As a result of the examinations, it was observed that F02 and F03 were
stores which are used for sales operations. F03 is used as a coffeehouse currently. F04 is
the restroom of the place. F05 was used as a storage. It is known that the stores where the
breads produced in the furnace, the coffeehouse and the restroom were in this building in
the early years of Unkapanı Mill (Seçer, 2002).

Building B04

The service building (B04) is a two-storey building locating on the southeast side
of the mill complex (Photo 10). The northwest side of the building is next to the furnace
building. There is an entrance from the furnace building to it. The Building B04 which has
a connection with the chimney is the section where the dough is baked to obtain bread.

307

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Photo 10. Unkapanı mill building survey and restitution
Source: Seçer, (2002)

Photo 11. Unkapanı Mill survey section and view of a warehouse building in the mill complex
Source: Taç Foundation, (1980), Seçer Kariptaş, (2008)

Current Condition and Deformations

When the current deformations of Unkapanı Mill are taken into consideration,
the deformations on the place, facades, structure and materials as well as the completely
destroyed sections were examined. Only the complete service building, three walls of the
furnace building, walls of the storage and dormitory building and a part of the lodgement
building in the mill complex have remained today (Photo 11- Photo 12).

The main mill building in the Unkapanı Mill complex does not exist currently. The
blocks for İstanbul Linendrapers’ Bazaar locate on the place today were the relevant building
used to locate. The complete southeast walls and parts of the southwest and northeast walls
of the furnace building remain today. Other walls, flooring and roofing of the building was
destroyed. Only the northwest walls of the building among the storage buildings which were
mainly destroyed remain. The northwest side of the three-storey lodgement building on the
north side of the mill complex was destroyed during the construction of blocks for İstanbul
Linendrapers’ Bazaar. The plasters are peeling on the walls of the cinema building which
remain in good condition and door and window joineries of it was destroyed (Table 1).

308

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 12. Unkapanı mill survey section and Unkapanı mill demolished warehouse, administration (C) and
lodging building (E)
Source: Tayla , (1970) - Secer Kariptas, (2008)

The wall plasters, door and window joineries and floorings of all building in the
Unkapanı Mill complex were completely destroyed. One of two chimneys of the mill
was completely and other was partially destroyed. The deformation conditions of the
buildings in the mill complex were indicated in a deformation table and the authentic
sections, destroyed parts, additions and changes and other deformations were examined
with this table. Two chimneys of the Unkapanı Mill can be observed on the photographs
taken in the 19th century and published maps. However, only one of them remain today
and it was mainly destroyed. As a result of the on-site examinations, a building survey
was drawn and a restitution project and then restoration works were performed based on
the gathered data.

Protection Proposals for Unkapanı Mill

It is obligatory to approach the problems related position of the building inside
the current structure, its economic, social and environmental conditions as a whole in
the studies related to functional transformation of industrial buildings. (Sarıman Özen,
2014). The restoration of the building in terms of its function requires of the following
interventions:

309

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Table1. Deformation Table of Unkapanı Mill
Deformation Table of Unkapani Mill

Place Authentic Sections Destroyed Parts Additions and Other
Changes Deformations

Storage Walls, doorways, Flooring materials, door It and its front were A shutter installed
Building I window bays and and window joineries covered. in front of it and
Storage frames to the door.
Building II
The Storage Building II
was destroyed completely

Furnace Southeast wall, Other walls, roofing Walls were put up A restroom was
Building doorways and and flooring, door and in the doors and built
window bays window joineries windows on the
southeast wall

Mill The Mill Building was
Building destroyed completely
Lodgement
Building Walls, doorways, Flooring material, door Door joineries were Soffits were built
Service window bays and joineries changed in front of it.
Building frames and stairs Flooring material, door
Cinema Walls, doorways, and window joineries Door and window It was attached to
Building window bays and Door and window joineries, roofing the mill complex
frames joineries Walls were put up later
Walls and floorings, in the doors and
roofing, door and windows
window joineries

Source: Seçer, (2002)

Cleaning

The additional structures which were constructed later in the Unkapanı Mill and
damaging the authenticity of the building should be removed. The walls put up in the
doors and windows of the furnace, storage, lodgement, cinema and service buildings
should be demolished and reinforced concrete additions should be removed. The single-
storey reinforced concrete building constructed on the northeast of the Building B04 from
the service buildings and the single-storey reinforced concrete building which is used as
a ticket office for the parking lot on the southeast of the Building F should be removed.
Besides, the restroom built next to the southeast wall of the furnace building and which
has an arched door should also be demolished. The unqualified floorings inside the
lodgement and cinema buildings should be removed in order to enable new arrangements.
All corroded metal components in the mill complex should be examined and cleaned with
suitable chemical cleaning agents.

Firstly, the plants on the facades should be removed and the place and a chemical
agent should be applied in order for the new plants to grow. The plaster residuals which
are not original on the walls of the buildings should be removed. The contaminations on

310

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

the walls caused by the climatic effects should be cleaned through chemical methods after
the samples taken from them are analysed.

Reinforcement

The walls of the storage building, lodgement building, cinema building and the
service buildings are the remaining structures of the mill complex. However, those walls
should be reinforced structurally. The deformations on the bricks and stones on the walls
caused by the natural effects should be prevented. All of the walls of the mill complex with
peeling plaster should be plastered for them to protect external effects. The proportions of
the mortar mixture to be used for the repair of the surfaces with peeled plaster should be
determined after the analysis of the samples to be taken from the current plaster.

Completion

The furnace and storage buildings in the Unkapanı Mill complex should be
completed based on the photographs, maps and similar sources. The roofs of the
buildings inside the mill complex can be observed clearly in the old photographs of the
mill and the map of J. Pervititch from 1930. The roofs should be completed based on
those photographs. The chimneys, one of which was completely and other was partially
destroyed, should be rebuilt based on their original heights and the northwest wall of the
lodgement building which was completely destroyed should also be rebuilt. The damaged
vaulted floors of the Storage Building A, the lodgement building and the cinema building
should be completed and roof of the storage building A should be rebuilt.

The destroyed parts of the archways in the northeast and northwest of the furnace
building should be completed and connected, the roofs should be completed based on the
photographs, maps and the traces, and the floors and roofs of the storage building B04 on
the northwest side of the furnace building should be rebuilt. The walls put up inside the
windows of the mill complex and the destroyed parapet walls should be rebuilt and the rebuilt
walls should be in conformity with the original walls in terms of their sizes and construction
methods. Besides, door frames which are partially destroyed should also be completed.

The broken and destroyed soffit profiles and floor mouldings should be completed
and plastered. The stairs inside the storage building (A04 and A08) and the stairs next to
the chimney should be rebuilt (Photo 15).

Restoration

The destroyed and damaged door and window joineries and the floors in the
lodgement building, cinema building and service buildings should be restored. In case
it is obligatory to change the original joineries of the windows, the new ones should

311

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

be in the same form, colour and shape. Since changing the sizes of the windows will
cause negative effects on the character of the building, the restoration works should be
performed carefully (Photo 13). The Unkapanı Mill have four main entrance doors and
they all should be restored.

Photo 13. A restoration project of Unkapanı Mill
Source: Yapı Merkezi ,(2008)

New Additions

The new additions should be in conformity with the original characteristics, size
and materials of the building. As indicated under the refunctioning proposals for the
Unkapanı Mill, it can be used as a culture and art centre. Another recommendation is based
on its use as a commercial and cultural centre by moving the commodity exchange office
there, as it was recommended under the restoration project conducted by the Structure
Centre. The additions to be build should be designed to support this idea. Firstly, the mill
complex should be completed based on its original structure. However, the mill building
cannot be rebuilt since currently there are İMÇ blocks on a part of the Unkapanı Mill
complex (D01 mill block).

Photo 14. General description perspective of the Unkapanı Mill restoration project
Source: Yapı Merkezi, (2008).

312

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

The buildings remaining with completely destroyed floors should gain new
functions and the main walls of the buildings should be preserved (see System Detail
of Management Centre). While the manager rooms to be built in the upper floor of the
storage building A are separated, light separator components were installed. External
stairs were built in order to reach the upper floor of the service building B04. The section
arranged as small stores where sales operations are carried out in the service building F
were separated with separators.

Refunctioning Proposals for Unkapanı Mill

While conducting studies on refunctioning, the first issue drawing the attention
was protecting the original identity of the building and emphasizing the characteristics
of the building (Kıraç,2001). In those buildings which are re-functionalized, the former
function and production should be presented to the users with the panels. Those buildings
can be used as malls, art galleries, multi-purpose halls (since they have wide open areas
and structural arrangements which can carry heavy loads) and residences (providing to
benefit from the open floor arrangements and high ceilings), (Seçer Kariptaş, 2020).
Today; the mill buildings which lost their functions are used as hotels, offices, furniture
stores, restaurants, theatres and residences.

Photo 15. Unkapanı Mill General Views
Source: Seçer Kariptaş,(2008)

Since Unkapanı locates at the centre of the city and surrounded by the towns
such as Taksim, Fatih and Zeyrek; it was recommended to use the Unkapanı Mill as
a cultural and commercial centre. The fact that it is close to the schools and business
centres affected the recommendations on recla (Photo 17). Some changes related to its
functions are inevitable inside the building whose exterior walls remain as original. A
restoration project was drawn named as “İTB Unkapanı Exchange-Culture and Business
Centre Project” by the Structure Centre for the Unkapanı Mill (Photo 13-Photo 14). Some
excavation works performed by the archaeological museum on the base of the Unkapanı
Mill continue. The project started to be applied after it was completed.

313

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

Photo 16. Restoration proposal for the Unkapanı Mill
Source: Seçer, (2002)

In this study, the destroyed parts and the current condition of the building
was determined first, and a building survey-restitution project was issued as
a result of the on-site examinations. Then; in accordance with the demand of the
İstanbul Commodity Exchange, the owner of the building, and by considering the
environmental conditions; it was deemed suitable to use the Unkapanı Mill as a
cultural centre (Photo16).

The restoration project issued by the Structure Centre and the recommended
project have several similarities. In both projects where the Unkapanı Mill is
considered as a cultural centre, it can be observed that the furnace building (B) and
storage-management building (C) in the mill complex are functioned as cultural
centres and exhibition halls and the service building is functioned as a bakery and
patisserie. Similarly, the old cinema building (G) is thought to carry out its function.
For the management buildings of the İstanbul Commodity Exchange, the building (E)
is deemed suitable in the restoration project of the Structure Centre and the building
(A) is deemed suitable in the recommended project. And among the recommendations
of the Structure Centre, one the chimneys remaining as a ruin today was planned as
a viewing tower for Haliç.

314

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 17.Unkapanı Mill B furnace building and chimney view
Source: Seçer Kariptaş, (2008)

Conclusion

The number of studies related to changes on the perceptions to the industrial
buildings, perception of industrial heritage and taking them under evaluation have
increased recently. Insufficient number of written sources related to the issue emphasizes
the importance of the existence of the old industrial buildings. The buildings itself
are considered as evidences providing the most appropriate information about it. It is
obligatory to preserve all kinds of data related to the architectural and technological
processes of the buildings considered as industrial heritage. The number of the examples
of refunctioning performed properly in order to spread the concept of industrial heritage
and understand its value should be increased and the buildings should be included in
the life of the city with their new functions. Preservation of the industrial areas and
buildings in this way is possible through restoration applications, revealing their original
characteristics and their hidden meanings and reinterpreting their identities with a new
perception.

315

An Industrial Heritage Example on İstanbul Füsun SEÇER KARİPTAŞ

The concept of industrial heritage can be considered as a new concept for
Turkey. Other monumental building types do not get their rewards and they keep in the
background. Therefore, people do not show the sufficient interest and documentation
works have not been carried out. As a result of the changing technology and needs,
several industrial buildings are empty and non-functional or they are used without a
comprehensive restoration works. Therefore, the buildings started to be destroyed slowly
and the technical furnishings inside them are sold or stolen. Insufficient archives also
cause difficulties while examining such buildings.

The industrial buildings constructed during the Westernization period of Ottoman
Empire are important since they reflect the technology and community life of the era.
Those buildings losing their functions in time have been damaged since they are empty
and neglected. The damages to the destroyed building should be prevented and they
should be protected as far as possible. For that purpose, detailed researches containing
determination, registration and documentation studies related to the buildings under
the industrial heritage should be conducted and building surveys should be issued. The
buildings should be recognized deeply, the parts added later should be determined and
periodical analyses should be issued based on dating works, and all of the studies should
be based on evidences.

The Unkapanı Mill should be used with a current function and it should continue
to exist in order to prevent damages to it. As emphasized before, there are a few industrial
buildings maintaining its original function today. Similarly, the mills lost their functions
and modern factories took their places. For those buildings to remain, they should be
restored, the ways to use them should be thought over and they should be maintained with
a suitable function along with the repair and reinforcement works. The buildings should be
intervened minimum with the restoration works to be performed, data should be gathered
related to the buildings, documents should be found and the restoration methods should
be applied based on the document-based restitution after they are evaluated deeply.

When the position of the Unkapanı Mill in the current structure, and its social and
environmental data are taken into consideration; using it as a Culture and Business Centre
was deemed suitable when the project and architectural characteristics are analysed. It
was observed that the building was functioned similarly in the restoration project carried
out in early 2000s by the Structure Centre. However, it is known that the project was not
finalized. Today, it is known that restoration projects for the Unkapanı Mill are conducted
as an educational structure and they will be applied after a little while. It is hoped that
the building to be refunctioned as a university building will turn into an education valley
from an industrial site along with several universities locating on the shores of Haliç and
that the Unkapanı Mill will be maintained as soon as possible.

316

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

References Seçer Kariptaş, F. (2009). “Protection And Re-
Evaluation Of Industrial Heritage”, V.International
Aynural, S. (2002). “İstanbul Değirmenleri ve Sinan Symposıum “Design Language ın Hıstorical
Fırınları”, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul. Areas”, Edirne.

Divan, A. (1984). “Paşalimanı Un Fabrikası Seçer Kariptaş, F. (2009). “Haliç Kıyısında Tarihi
Restorasyon Projesi”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans bir Sanayi Yapısı: Unkapanı Değirmeni”, Tasarım+
Tezi, İ.T.Ü. M.F., İstanbul. Kuram Dergisi, MSGSU, S.7, s.54-64, İstanbul.

Ezgeç, P. (1998). “Kasımpaşa Un Fabrikası Seçer Kariptaş, F. (2011). “Unkapanı Değirmeni’nin
Restorasyon Projesi”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Mimari Analizi ve Günümüz Şartlarında
Tezi, Değerlendirilmesi”, Mimarlık Dergisi, S.357, Ankara.

İ.T.Ü. M.F., İstanbul. Mantran, R. (1996). “17. ve 18. Seçer Kariptaş, F. (2013). “Unkapanı Değirmeni
Yüzyıllarda İstanbul”, Dünya Kenti İstanbul Habitat Rölöve, Restitüsyon ve Restorasyon Projesi”,
II, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, (ss.38-40), İstanbul. Restorasyon Konservasyon Dergisi, s. 39-47, İstanbul.

Güçer, L. (1964) XVI-XVII. Asırlarda Osmanlı Seçer Kariptaş, F., Aytis, S., Kariptaş, F.(2020),
İmparatorluğunda Hububat Meselesi ve Hububattan “Geçmişin Elektrrik Santralleri Nasıl Günümüzün
Alınan Vergiler, s. 93-95, İstanbul. Sanat Merkezleri Oldu?”, Yapı Degisi, S.459, s.20-
25, İstanbul.
Kıraç, A.B. (2001). “Türkiyede’ki Tarihi Sanayi
Yapılarının Günümüz Koşullarına Göre Yeniden Tutel, E.,(2000). “Haliç”, Dünya Yayıncılık, s. 99-
Değerlendirilmeleri Konusunda Bir Yöntem Önerisi”, 102, İstanbul.
MSÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul.

Mantran, R. (1990). 17.Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında
İstanbul, çev.M.Ali Kılıçbay, E.Özcan, C.I-II, TTK,
Ankara.

Müller-Wiener, W. (1998). “15-19.Yüzyılları
Arasında İstanbul’da İmalathane ve Fabrikalar”,
Osmanlılar ve Batı Teknolojisi, der.Ekmeleddin
İhsanoğlu, İ.Ü., İstanbul.

Müller-Wiener, W. (1998).“Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya
İstanbul Limanları” Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,
İstanbul.

Olivier, (1977). Türkiye Seyahatnamesi, çev. Oğuz
Gökmen, Ayyıldız Matbaası, s. 130, Ankara.

Sariman Özen, E. (2014), “Liman Kentlerı’nde
Koruma Ve Yaşatma Prensipleriyle Değerlendirilen
Gemış İnşa Endüstrisi Yapıları: Tersane-İ Amire
Üzerine Yeni Bir Senaryo “Haliç Tersanesi Bilıinç
Platformu”, MSGSÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Doktora
Tezi, İstanbul.

Seçer, F. (2002). “İstanbul’daki Osmanlı Dönemi
Değirmenlerinin Mimari Açıdan İncelenmesi Ve
Unkapanı Değirmeni’nin Günümüz Şartlarında
Değerlendirilmesi”, MSGSÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.

317



THE ART OF TURKISH GLASS TRADITION
“BEYKOZ-PAŞABAHÇE CAMKÖY” PROJECT:
A SUSTAINABLE MODEL ON THE PROTECTION
OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE UNDER THE
CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ1

Abstract

In the 16th century, The Ottoman Empire established its first glass factory in the
Paşabahçe district of Beykoz, in Istanbul to develop the Art of Turkish Glass Tradition
and turn it into a glass industry. In 2002 “Şişecam, Paşabahçe Glass Factory” was
discontinued production, although the glass of creating an identity, Turkey’s heritage in
terms of industrial history, industrial heritage potential to become an integrated cultural
heritage.

“The Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy” Project is an important project of the
“Camköy Foundation”, designed in 1987 as an ecosystem that includes industry, culture,
employment, and creativity village that will create its new identity by taking strength
from this tradition in order to preserve this cultural heritage and the Art of Turkish Glass
Tradition.

The project emerges as a method and model that describes how these concepts will
become reality in practice at a time when the concepts of industrial heritage and creative
economies have not yet been put forward and conceptually developed in terms of their
goals and planning. Therefore, “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy Project” should be evaluated
with these concepts and approaches and brought back to the agenda again.

1   Ph. D., Haliç University; Faculty of Architecture.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-1367-7550

319

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

Introduction: The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition-Beykoz
Paşabahçe Glassworks

In the history of civilization, glass manufacture has been expensive manufacture that
requires technology. Therefore, glass manufacture developed as a prestigious technology
specially supported by states and political power. The resulting products also reflected the
identity of this power.

Objects made from glass have been one of the products that best tell the culture and
technological level of that society. Throughout history, glass can be seen with various purposes
such as functional and practical products as well as works of art, religious symbols etc.

The story of glass production that started thousands of years ago in Anatolia was
crowned in Istanbul in its industrialization adventure that continues with the Roman,
Byzantine, Ottoman Empire, and the Republic of Turkey. Ottoman glass industry was
sustained in Istanbul in certain manufacturing plants and workshops around the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus (Tekfur Palace) and Baruthane in the early times. This region near the city
walls with easy raw material access and transportation was first moved to the coasts of Golden
Horn and then to scarcely populated the Bosporus village Beykoz due to fire danger and wastes
pollution caused by the production style. Thus, a glass industry in the real sense was created in
the İstanbul Beykoz Paşabahçe region. Beykoz Glass Manufacture that was started here was
in fact sustaining the 3000-year-old Mediterranean Glass Manufacture historical identity. East
Mediterranean Glass Manufacture which was the beginning of the glass manufacture and the
later-developed Venetian Glass Manufacture influenced creating glass works of art known as
“Beykoz Glass” identity which belongs to us (Küçükerman, 2002)

Starting from the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire made large-scale investments to
develop its glass industry. However, it is possible to talk about a completely developing glass
industry after the 19th century. Untill the 18th century, glass manufacturing in Istanbul was
only able to meet the domestic market needs in terms of production technology, technical
knowledge intensity, and capacity.

In these periods with increased manufactures by using high technology and knowledge
in the new manufacturing centers with the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 1770s in
Europe, Selim III desired to create an industry that can complete with the developments in
Europe. In the 1790’s, the first glass factory was established in the Beykoz region of Istanbul
and various glass workshops in Paşabahçe and the surrounding area. In this period, the
“Çeşm-i Bülbül” (Nightingale’s eye) tradition which still continues as manufacture emerged
with “Beykoz Glasswork” glasses.

The location of Beykoz manufacture which the Venetian glass masters have laid the
foundation was selected as this Bosporus village due to terrain, water resources, a dock for
raw material transport, being far from the settlement in terms of industrial fires and being a
safe region.

320

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 1: Istanbul, 1800s
Source: https://archives.saltresearch.org; edited Edirne, Erdinç, J.

In the 1850s, Dolmabahçe Palace played a vital role to create a new design identity in
the Ottoman Empire. Because Dolmabahçe Palace was built to rapidly reflect the industrial
revolution. This palace gathers the most outstanding designs and products of that period.
Therefore, Dolmabahçe Palace which exhibits European glass technology products played an
important role in the development of Ottoman Glass art (Küçükerman, Edirne, 2020).

In the same period, Sultan Abdulmecid who supported art and design established
an Ottoman ceramic tile and crystal (cut glass) factory in Beykoz. This factory has come
into play in the development of glass manufacture for long years and our glass industry
was born as of today’s tradition.

Other than the imperial supported independent manufacturers were also included in
Beykoz Glass Manufacture tradition. In the Sultan Abdulhamid II period, an Italian called

321

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

Saul Modiano established a glass factory called “Fabbrica vetrami di Constantinople” in 1889
in Paşabahçe and this factory operated until the 1920s to contribute to Beykoz Glassworks.

Beykoz Paşabahçe glass factory

Paşabahçe Glass Factory is the first factory that ensured the formation and
development of the glass industry in Turkey in a real sense. The factory was established
based on the historical glass manufacturing tradition in Beykoz.

Paşabahçe Glass Factory was established in 1935 in line with the industrialization
policies of the Republic of Turkey by authorizing Türkiye İş Bankası under the instructions
of Atatürk. The first name was “Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları Anonim Sosyetesi”. The
factory then created Şişe Cam Society.

The strategies included under the first five-year industrial plan were created to
ensure domestic and national production of the glass industry products as well as various
other basic industrial products. This factory was designed to manufacture 4500-ton glass
per year by considering the glass needs of Turkey.

The raw materials used in the glass manufacture were acquired from different
regions such as sand from the Black Sea coast and lime and dolomit from Marmara Island.
Only soda ash came from outside. According to the five-year economic plan, the plan to
make soda ash from the land of Turkey was planned. These movements predicted in the
factory program aimed to eliminate the foreign-source dependence of the Republic in terms
of raw materials and industrial products. This led to domestic raw materials being processed
and used in the economy.

This factory, named from the district it is in, is regarded not only as a glass factory
plant. It is also an important factory for building modern Turkey. It undertook an important
role to create the modern urban identity. Additionally, the facilities in this factory are a
cultural heritage to reflect the architectural properties of the industrial structures in the
Republic period. The facilities pioneered to create and develop the Republic period industrial
structures. At this point, it is important to note that the Republic period industrial structures
are not just a factory but an “establishment”. Such establishment deeply influenced both its
region and the country in terms of social, cultural and economic development and change.

While the factory changed and transformed over the glass art tradition know-how of
the Beykoz district, it also changed the socio-cultural structure of the district. It contributed
to improve the 200-years-old Turkish glass art tradition and to sustain its cultural identity.

Beykoz district has become a district competing with the international glass industry
in traditional glass manufacture style of Turkish Glass Industry and Art developed since the
19th century and witnessed this entire process.

At the end of the 20th-century Beykoz district and Paşabahçe Glass Factory were
located in the city because the city expanded on large scales in years.

322

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Beykoz - Paşabahçe Glass Factory continued with glass manufacture in every field
since 2002. Şişe Cam Society adopted a strategy to expand the glass industry plants to
the other regions of the country to manufacture different products in different regions and
plants. As Beykoz factory focused on handmade arts, the claim to shut down the factory due
to inefficiency was raised.

It was claimed that the glass factory district was not suitable for new investments because
no more areas around the factory were available for development due to the city itself. It was
believed that the inner-city location of the factory created negative effects and therefore, the
factory must be closed and repurposed as a tourism facility due to its highly valuable location.

The manufacturing in the factory stopped in January 2002. The factory as one of
the most important elements that create the urban identity was left to perish.

Emergence of Beykoz-Paşabahçe-Camköy Project

In the 1980s, the Bosporus Law No. 2960 was enacted for İstanbul Boğaziçi
district and the law stated that the Bosporus coastline should be used by considering the
public interest. According to this law which approached the concept of public interest in
a highly superficial way it is planned the Bosporus for a recreative and tourism-purposed
usage. Following the municipal plans in 1983, Beykoz-Paşabahçe Glass Factory and its
land were marked as a tourism facility to the city plans according to the law.

Figure 2: Beykoz 1993
Source: Ö. Küçükerman’s Archive

323

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

These municipal plan changes started to reflect that the factory will be closed
and converted to a hotel by building additional facilities. The 300-meter coastline to the
Bosporus of the factory land made this land attractive for tourism purposes. This quality
of the factory land has precluded the cultural and industrial heritage of the factory. The
district and factory with 200-years of know-how and integrated cultural heritage where
the glass tradition was born will become a touristic facility by repurposing as a hotel and
marina.

Despite all these plans, since the day of claims to close the Paşabahçe glass
factory, various institutions and NGOs argued the need to preserve the industrial
cultural heritage of the factory and the facilities. A “camköy” (glass village) idea
was born by inspiring from the way the glass industrial districts were handled as
successful examples around the world to preserve these values and characteristics
and to carry them into the future.

One of the individuals arguing that the Beykoz Glass Manufacture and Beykoz
Paşabahçe Glass Factory should be preserved as an industrial cultural heritage was Mr.
Prof. Önder Küçükerman, Dean of Faculty of Architecture in Mimar Sinan University
at that time. Mr. Önder Küçükerman who worked as design manager, designer,
consultant and design coordinator in Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları company as
well as various institutions and organizations between 1971-1993 prepared projects
to “organize, develop and consolidate traditional industrial resources in Turkey in a
multifaceted way in terms of design and creativity”. He has numerous publications
on the same topic.

Önder Küçükerman found the idea to create a tourism region and facility in
Beykoz Paşabahçe Glass Factory District and to re-purpose the factory buildings
other than the main function by considering the public interest incorrect.

The building complex which is a powerful symbol of 200-year-old Beykoz
glass manufacture, in addition to being a cultural and industrial facility started from
the Ottoman Empire to the Republic is industrial cultural heritage. Mr. Küçükerman
argued that the factory includes integrated values that need to be preserved and
developed for the country, the region and the Turkish Glass Manufacture heritage.
He started to develop a method and model idea to ensure preserving and developing
these values. This method will also act as a laboratory in order to preserve and sustain
similar values.

This preservation model will serve for touristic purposes more than a hotel
and marina in the region. This glass village which will be sustaining the industrial
heritage will further support tourism. This project will ensure the sustainability of the
traditional identity and traditional products of a region obtained from its historical
experiences. This approach is a cultural project that will create employment and
support regional tourism. At the same time, this approach will keep the cultural and
traditional identity alive.

324

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

To realize this purpose, Önder Küçükerman

prepared a series of video presentations with

M.S.U Cinema-Television center to introduce

the important handcraft and glass villages. The

leading examples with similar industrial and

cultural heritage applications around the world

were investigated in their original location. These

are important examples in the glass manufacture

area including Venice and Murano island in Italy,

Bodenmais region in Germany and “Kosta-Boda”

and “Orrefors” in Sweden. The findings as a result

of these trips were based on video presentations to

act as a documentary for the purpose of molding

public opinion. Figure 3: Camköy foundation h ogo, 1985

In 1987, when Önder Küçükerman was Source: Ö. Küçükerman’s Archive

the Dean of Faculty of Architecture in Mimar

Sinan University, he explained his Camköy project (Glass Village) idea to Beykoz

Congressman of that period Tınaz Titiz in a Beykoz trip. As a result of this trip, it

is revealed that the Camköy project must be realized by a foundation consisting of

voluntary individuals. In 1987, the “Camköy Foundation” was established to ensure

a corporate structure to realize the Camköy project.

Prof. Önder Küçükerman was taken charge of the role as founder and
chairman of the foundation. All the necessary works to establish the foundation were
undertaken by Şişecam and Paşabahçe officers and lawyers. The founding members of
the Camköy foundation included the Ministry of Culture Tınaz Titiz, Beykoz Mayor
and Şişecam officers of that period. “Camköy” project and “Camköy Foundation”
establishment and efforts were supported by the President of the Republic of that
period Turgut Özal.

These promoters that created the Camköy Foundation were Beykoz Mayor’s
Office, Glass Masters from Beykoz, Chamber of Arts and Craftsman, Türkiye Şişe
ve Cam Fabrikaları and Paşabahçe Cam Sanayi A.Ş. Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları A.Ş.
undertook the financing of the comprehensive projects of “Camköy”. This team
worked voluntarily for six years to realize this project.

Beykoz-Paşabahçe district contains the necessary integrated values to preserve
and develop the Turkish glass manufacture tradition and history. The main purpose
of the Camköy Foundation project was to sustain the glass manufacture tradition that
has been created in Beykoz and lasted for more than 200 years after the Paşabahçe
Factory was moved to Denizli. In fact, the answer for how to sustain the cultural
heritage was sought rather than how to sustain glass tradition with the help of the
foundation.

325

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

Characteristics of Beykoz - Paşabahçe Camköy Project as
an Exemplary Foundation Project Sustained by Voluntary
Stakeholders Between 1987-1993

Beykoz - Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project maps the creative economy and creative
industry concepts in terms of both its objectives and planning perfectly. At this point, the
project emerges as to how to turn these concepts into reality on a date such concepts were
not clear and conceptualized yet. From this perspective, the characteristics of the Beykoz
- Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project become even more important.

Beykoz - Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project has transformed into an industrial culture
region with glass manufacture products and physical spaces that have been living for more
than 200 years. In the project assessment, it is important to evaluate in terms of preserving
and sustaining the facility and the connected physical, cultural and sociologic values.

Figure 4: Camköy project layout plan
Source: Ö. Küçükerman’s Archive

The general purposes of this project were to increase the historical glass
manufacture tradition value in the district, make Beykoz and its know-how a brand,

326

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

support glass masters in the district to transfer and sustain the human capital of these
craftsmen to the new generations.

CAMKÖY project aims to transform the district into the Centre of Turkish Glass
Manufacture. Camköy is a cultural, industrial employment and creativity village that
preserves the past and the tradition and creating a new identity with these values. It is
predicted that the village will transform into an ecosystem where the cultural heritage
is preserved and tourism-supported employment is created. The project will ensure the
Beykoz district to be an important cultural heritage center. This will revamp and improve
special traditional technology and enrich creative thinking with advanced technologies.

Functions included in CAMKÖY Project

CAMKÖY Project did not sustain as a thought project. While the foundation chairman
and members supported the project voluntarily, Şişe Cam A.Ş. provided financial support to
design the project and for the architectural models. The district considered under the scope
of the project, in fact, was suitable for such a project in physical terms. Both the coastline
and Sultaniye Meadow provided ideal conditions for functions contains the Camköy Project.
Camköy project was designed in three main sections in line with the project’s purposes.

Entrance section

In the project planning, the entrance section as the 1st Section starts from the
Camköy ferry port and coastline. This section is designed as a promotion and sales
region. There are promotion exhibitions, informative sales units, Camköy sculpture and
Camköşk cafe. The factory on the coastline will be partially keeping the manufacture
alive and partially using as a museum with industrial and architectural heritage exhibition.

Glass museum and social facilities

This section where the natural texture is preserved with cultural values determines
the project’s identity. Following the coastline, there is a Turkish Neighborhood with two-
story houses, top uses as housing settlements for glass craftsmen’s families and glass
workshops with traditional glass products at the bottom. These houses are designed based on
principles of the Bosporus Turkish architectural identity. There is also a historical mansion
in the region. The mansion will be restored and serve as Beykoz Glass Manufacture history
museum. There are facilities for touristic accommodation services in the region.

Manufacture facility and glass manufacture school

In this section, large manufacture facilities, glass manufacture school with
R&D, and training areas are designed. The inter-relationship system between the
sections is ensured by transforming the “Camköy” project’s potential from the past to

327

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

the Contemporary Turkish Glass Manufacture Centre by supporting the movement of
the economic structure. This holistic structure of the project is important as the project
considers the existing settlement texture of the district. As an example, to oversee the
economic structure and transformation of the district for the transformation of the
industrial region as well as its social structure in the planning stage reflects the foresighted
nature of the Camköy project.

Evaluation of Beykoz - Paşabahçe Camköy Project Under
Creative Economies and Conservation of Cultural Heritage

In recent years, nations, unions created by nations such as the European Union
and international organizations around the world revealed that economic growth cannot
only be achieved with economic values and classical economic concepts and approaches.
Thus concepts have been generated on this topic and programs and organizations have
been laid out.

These ramified conceptual works, organizations and programs prioritize
sustainability and human development for the world. It argues that certain integrated
values can be used as a driving force for sustainability and human development. These
integrated values are used for improving the current economic system with creative
industries concept which is a new economic approach.

Some of these concepts which conceptual studies have been applied in recent
years to create this integrated economic structure are shown as:

• Creative People, Creative Class,
• Creative Economy, Creative Industry,
• Culture Industry,
• Creative Region, Creative City,
• Creative Cities Network

Understanding the interrelation between these concepts is important to holistically
apprehend the subject.

These concepts are considered together with sustainable human development and
cultural heritage phenomenon thus, the foundation for the “new economic order” is laid.

Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project is interrelated with most of these concepts
both in terms of its objectives and planning. The purpose is to reveal and sustain the
200-year-old Turkish glass art cultural heritage in Beykoz, which has been the center of
the glass industry in the 19th century. It is a project that knows the value of Turkish glass
art and glass manufacture tradition and transfers this value and cultural know-how to the
next generations.

328

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

The main purpose of this study is to assess the suitability of qualities of the
Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY project. When this project was conceived and had these
qualities, these concepts were not even revealed yet. Below, this assessment is undertaken
under the concept of sub-sections.

Creative people and creative class

Traditional economic systems started with human labor and manufacturing with
human and animal muscle force. With the industrial revolution, the human and animal
powers were replaced by fossil fuels and then by electricity. With these new energies and
machines through manufacturing, mass production became possible.

The change following the industrial revolution in the economy and production
continues at two stages. Cybernetic robotic technology, which is one of these stages,
changed the role of the human factor in manufacturing. A manufacturing process with
fewer humans started. Another economic approach was to differentiate with creativity
beyond manufacturing and selling goods. The development in this direction meant
combining creativity and industry.

Here, it is important to highlight the creativity and creative class concepts.

In the West languages, “kreativitaet, creativity” is used for expressing this
concept. The word comes from Latin “creare”. This word means “giving birth, creating,
generating” (SAN, 1985).

Figure 5: Beykoz Paşabahçe glass manufacture 1988
Source: Ö. Küçükerman’s Archive

329

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

Today, creativity has gained importance in science and technical aspects as well
as in art. Therefore, creativity has become a concept that is defined by scientists in recent
years (RAZON, 1990).

Creative people develop in family’s life philosophy, cultural and scientific level
and the civilizations and social development of the country s/he is living in. At the same
time, such individuals can develop in societies that value, care about and support creativity
and creative individuals in a cultural sense. As a result of this supportive attitude of the
society, creative people offer cultural, scientific, and economic benefit to the society.

Creativity characteristics and creative thinking style can only occur with an
education system uncovering creativity. In this education system, fundamental education
is organized to reveal creativity. Additionally, creativity in occupational education is now
a fundamental requirement for all occupations.

Creative classes begin to form in societies with creative people. This class formed
by the creative individual develops the society they are in not only in terms of art but also
industry, economy and even politics.

A creative industry means an industry that employs creative people and classes.
A creative economy is an economy formed by these industries. Such economies are thus
defined as creative economies. A new element for added value is highlighted in creative
economies which are depicted as a new concept while the old values (capital, raw material,
energy, human labor, etc.) keep their positions. This difference is the difference presented
by the creative people. The product and services exhibited by knowledge and intellectual
creative thinking create a significant difference. Moreover, a creative approach is visible
in all stages of the economy including manufacturing, sales, marketing and even shipment.
This behavior creates quality and quantity differences in the economy.

There is a qualified creative class in Beykoz-Paşabahçe created by the Turkish
Glass Art and Industry. Moreover, this creative class created by the creative individuals
is the owner of a tradition that forms the foundation of the glass industry with a historical
background. As the factory closed, this creative human capital distributed to other regions
with other manufacturing and job opportunities. Merely the strong chain sustain by this
creative class is broken and the craftsmanship, tradition, as well as the marks of cultural
identity, disappear. By realizing Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project, such a creative
class will re-exist in this district. The old craftsmen and following generation glass artists
and craftsmen can transfer their know-how to the new creative generation. The effects of
the creative class and what they bring to society will be sustained.

Culture industries

Most of the developed countries of the world understood the creative economy
and its importance at the beginning of the 2000s. Therefore, they started comprehensive
studies on the creative economy and connected concepts. One of these studies is the

330

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

concept of cultural industries. In general, culture industries are defined as the relationship
of artistic branches with the industry. The culture industry concept is used for expressing
the techniques and models of propagating cultural goods rather than the manufacturing
process itself. Culture industries exist as a sub-industry in the creative industries (Ay,
2020).

Creative industries

The creative industries concept emerged when the UK Department for Culture
Media and Sport-DCMS classified the activities in the creative industries. The UK
Department for Culture Media and Sports defines the creative industries as follows: these
are the industries based on individual’s creativity including advertisement, architecture,
art and antique markers, handcraft, design, fashion, movie and video, interactive
entertainment software, music, stage arts, radio and television, publishing and software
industries (UK Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2011).

The creative industries are the industries related to artistic manufacture and product.
While they can be individual and small-scale, they can also be large-scale industries such
as movie industries, media industries and social platforms. United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) defined the fundamental properties of the creative
industries as creating, producing and distributing goods and services used as the basic
inputs of creative and intellectual capital.

They form a series of information-based activities generating income from
intellectual property and trade by focusing on art without being confined by it. They include
abstract and concrete intellectual or artistic services with creative content, economic value
and market targets. It is the intersection point of craftsmen, services and industrial sectors. It
creates a new dynamic sector in global trade. The sectors that form the creative economies
are interrelated. This relation enables economic synergy and sustainability.

The German Commission for UNESCO stated in its 2015 report “Glassmaking
communities traditionally had a close international network” and announced to accept
glass manufacture as an intangible cultural heritage. The Commission further added that
the preservation and further development of the glass design and manufacture are only
possible with the existence of a transnational interaction in the future and “a complex
information and solid experience richness.”

Additionally, the Commission report included the importance of using our know-how
“for prevention precautions with education and training, creating collaboration and networks,
scientific studies as well as fighting against the threat of technical knowledge loss with media
and museum mediation.” Glass craftsmen who continue the tradition and knowledge transfer this
cultural heritage to innovative potentials with arts and crafts training. They encourage regional
and transnational art, design and manufacturing knowledge exchange. This exchange happens
as applications, knowledge, techniques, tools, works, related cultural fields, values, memories
and skills. Thus, cultural heritage is preserved and sustained. This is provided by humans who

331

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

transfer between spaces and generations. Glass art and manufacture are an alive cultural heritage
with observable dynamic, transformation, and development. It lives in the application rather than
the goods. It offers unique, creative processes to transfer knowledge from the tradition, raise
awareness across the young generations and for a sense of belonging to a certain society.

These integrated sectors and values are gathered in the Camköy project to create
a synergy together.

The architecture is both about how the cultural heritage of the old structures will be
utilized and how new requirements for treating these old structures will be applied. Craft
products are functional, quality and cultural values. CAMKÖY is a project to create an
environment to support the creative industries. It involves product development, capacity
development and networking system.

Suitable Activities:

- Creating common usage areas for entrepreneurs and users for creative

industries and improving the existing areas (prototype laboratories, test-
experiment areas, work offices, etc.)

- Design, idea, content, product development activities
- Product development, prototyping, marketing, commercializing, finance,

export and intellectual property consultancy support

- Support to transform creative industry products to international products and

branding

- Organizing capacity development and training programs for designers,

creators, entrepreneurs and small businesses

- Developing collaboration between international creative platforms, groups

and centers and networking between creative platforms

- Raising awareness for creative industries and organizing promotion activities.

When the project selection criteria of the Ministry of Industry and Technology of
the Republic of Turkey for national project resource allocation are considered, we can see
that the Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY project matches all these criteria.

Cultural heritage and creative economies

For creative economies, UNESCO recommends a holistic approach that cares
about the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development.
One of the most important elements in this approach is the “cultural heritage”.

In 2008, the United Nationals Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
stated that cultural heritage plays a role in creative economies for the developing
countries to reach their sustainable development objectives. Additionally, the Conference
underlined that socio-economic growth, job creation potential and social engagement

332

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

should encourage cultural versatility and human development. The “Faro-Value of
Cultural Heritage for Society Framework Convention” of the European Council raises
attention to the relationship between cultural heritage and creativity. The Convention
states that cultural heritage preservation is a central factor as the mutual supporter of
sustainable development and creativity. Cultural heritage becomes an identity, innovation
and creative source for the individual and the society to create a contribution to direct and
indirect economic development with its capacity to consolidate creative industries and
inspiring creators/thinkers.

Creative region

Creative people need to meet with high technology and a creative economy mindset
approach. This enabled the creation of a real creative region. Creative workers choose these
regions and cities. Istanbul is one of the most important creative cities around the world with
its history and cultural know-how that has high creative region potential.

Creative regions become attraction centers for the creative class. This is either
provided by the existence of conditions or by building on an existing value. These values
could be raw material, natural resources, natural or international transportation hubs. In fact,
one of these existing values is the cultural and industrial heritage structures and regions. These
regions are also built on such fundamental values in their initial establishment. However, they
have created an advanced cultural and scientific know-how and infrastructure since they have
manufactured in that region for a long time.

They became regions where quality life opportunities are offered as a contemporary
lifestyle. The regions with activities creating a focus for artistic culture as well as with healthy
recreative areas and the cities that have these regions are important centers for the creative
economy.

Beykoz actually lived like a creative region at the time the Beykoz - Paşabahçe
CAMKÖY Project was proposed. What has to be done is to carry the region forward with
such a project and to move an important value forward by transforming the historical, cultural
and economic value of the region into a creative industry.

Various values of the region in fact still exist and it is possible to re-animate the creative
region on this foundation. Accordingly, the CAMKÖY project is a creative region example. At
the same time, an important synergy can be achieved by gathering with other creative regions.

Creative cities, creative cities network

Creative cities are attraction centers that can create the desired economic and cultural
environment by gathering all these components.

The cities have the skill to create and discover new dimensions of the creative due
to their dynamic structures combining history, cultural history and various cultural and

333

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

economic actors. Creative cities have a creative perspective to create the foundation of
rejuvenation by introducing the existing local resources. They transform existing industries
and manufacturing activities into new approaches. They claim the historical heritage and
knowledge-based cultural heritage from the tradition. By using the cultural groups supplied
from these resources, they find the foundation of the creative economy.

Istanbul is registered as a creative city in design in 2017 by UNESCO. Istanbul is a
city with most of the characteristics and main themes of a creative city.

UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network program is an initiative combining cities
with different income level capacities and populations in order to work in the creative
industries field. This concept aiming to encourage regional and transnational art, design
and manufacturing information exchange also has efforts related to glass craftsmen and
manufacturing resources. To gather the knowledge potentials of the creative actors of the
existing glass manufacturing centers, international glass symposiums, summer courses,
training organizations encouraging experimental knowledge transfer are applied under the
creative cities network.

The project application of European glass regions and glass manufacturers to
European Union “Creative Europe Culture” program in order to create and develop
competencies in art, design, craftsmanship, manufacturing, and networking was accepted in
2018. The project aims to develop the competences among various glass regions and glass
craftsmanship in art, design, crafts, and manufacturing areas and to create a network.

Bild-Werk concept focuses on gathering especially the know-how of the East
Bavarian glass region with successful European glass regions approach, experiences, and
communication networks and to offer this potential to the use of young glass manufacturers.

Since the Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY project included these elements 30 years before
the Bild-Werk example, it can be seen that the designed spaces and objectives match with today’s
European Union and UNESCO glass heritage protection and sustainability objectives.

Discussion and Conclusions

The share of creative economies in the global economy is gradually increasing.
The necessary ecosystems for the creative economies, must be built on countries, cities,
and regions’ intellectual, geographic, cultural, and economic values.

The creative economies or industries are more advantageous when built on the
existing foundations of these regions’ cultural and industrial heritage structures than
creating a new economic region from nothing. The cultural and industrial heritage
forms a basis for sustainable development and life quality.

İstanbul registered under the design theme as a creative city is actually a city with
various integrated values. Some of these values are natural topographic and geographic.

334

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

The city’s cultural values due to being the intersection of transportation paths between the
continents, the know-how of various civilizations throughout history and its natural beauties.

İstanbul is a source of scientific intellectual and artistically qualified human resources
created with the Byzantine, Ottoman and Republic architectural works, archeologic
regions from the Neolithic times, industrial heritage structures revealing the industrial and
manufacturing history, structures with the foundations of art and design and accumulation
of these values. It is one of the rare cities with these values.

One of these values is the Beykoz and Paşabahçe region that gained an important
property with 200 years of glass manufacture tradition and craftsmanship.

Beykoz-Paşabahçe CAMKÖY project developed in Beykoz, the center of the glass
industry in the 19th century within the scope of Cultural Heritage preservation and the areas
impacted from this preservation for revealing and sustainability of 200-years of Turkish
glass art cultural heritage, appears as a project that values of the Turkish glass art and glass
manufacture tradition long before the cultural heritage and creative industry concepts and
to transfer this value and cultural know-how to the next generations.

The project is planned to expand glass manufacture knowledge and mainly artistic
glass manufacture in Beykoz and Paşabahçe region that gained an important property
with 200 years of glass manufacture tradition and craftsmanship. Creating a special glass
manufacture village in line with the local resources will enable creating a region that makes
the glass art, with special raw material and techniques plays a role in cultural heritage
preservation laboratory for the Turkish glass art as well as realizes creative economy which
in the codes of the region and creative industry concepts. This project that will consolidate
the reason for Istanbul to be selected as a creative city will be integrated into valuable
regional projects in Istanbul and enable the city to be a valuable city in the creative cities
networks as well as the cultural and economic network it will create in itself.

In 1987 CAMKÖY Project was almost designed with an important foresight and
sensitivity with the creative industry and creative economy approach of today, updating
and re-applying CAMKÖY will be an extremely contemporary approach and it will be
integrated into the arteries of the regional economy where the industrial heritage should
be preserved and developed.

Beykoz district, is one of such values in Istanbul in terms of creative economies
and creative industries, can be revealed as a regional value where cultural and economic
potential can be uncovered and cultural and environmental sustainability can be achieved.

In this sense, Istanbul can be turned into a happy, peaceful and humanely developed
city and an economically advanced urban space with an integrated approach and planning.

Beykoz – Paşabahçe CAMKÖY Project can be a model for various similar values
in Istanbul. By building the history of cultural values, an attraction center can be created in
these creative regions and various new creative industries can be formed. The project will
support sustainable development.

335

The Art of Turkish Glass Tradition “Beykoz-Paşabahçe Camköy... Jülide EDİRNE ERDİNÇ

Acknowledgement Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları AŞ Yayınları,
publication (ISBN 975- 7028-11-8)
I would like to express my gratitude
to my valuable advisor Prof. Dr. Önder Küçükerman, Ö. (1998). “Cam Sanatı, GTC Örnekler”
Küçükerman for helping me to use his Ankara, Turkey: Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları
archive related to Beykoz-Paşabahçe A.Ş. Yayını, publication No.271
CAMKÖY.
Küçükerman, Ö. (1998). “500 Years’ Heritage in
Istanbul.

References The Turkish Glass Industry and Şişecam” İstanbul:
Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları A.Ş. publication,
(ISBN 975-7028-04-5)

Aslan, G (2017). “Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Yükselişi: Küçükerman, Ö. (1979). “Cam Ve Endüstri Tasarımı
Geçmiş, Bugün ve Gelecek” Anadolu University İlişkileri Konusunda Paşabahçe’nin Yayınladığı
Journal of Social Sciences (AUJSS), 17(4), 109 - 121 Bir Kitap: Cam ve Çağdaş Tasarım İçindeki Yeri”
İstanbul: Kitap tanıtım yazısı, “Şişe Cam”. Şişecam
Ay, A. (2020). “Medya Ve Kültür Endüstrisi yayını, yıl: 19, sayı: 105, Kasım-Aralık
Eleştirisinin Yeniden Üretimi” Journal of Selcuk
Communication, 13 (1), 314-337 . Retrieved Küçükerman, Ö., Edirne Erdinç, J. (2020) “Kültürel
from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/josc/ Mirasın Korunması ve Yaratıcı Ekonomiler
issue/52040/539089 Kapsamında, Türk Cam Sanatı Geleneği Beykoz-
Paşabahçe “Camköy” Projesi” İstanbul: II.
Eliot Tretter (2011) The ‘Value’ of Europe: The Uluslararası Beykoz Sempozyumu – 2020, Beykoz
Political Economy of Culture in the European Belediyesi yayını, publication
Community, Geopolitics, 16:4, 926-948, doi:
10.1080/14650045.2011.554465 Önsoy, R. (1988). “Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı
Sanayii ve Sanayileşme Politikası” Ankara: İş
Esen, Ü.B. & Ö. Atay (2017), “Ekonominin Yeni Bankası Yayınları ISBN 10: 9754580065
Yüzü: Yaratıcı Ekonomi”, Sosyoekonomi Journal,
Vol. 25(33), 59-80 Bild-Werk Frauenau, (2021), Retrieved from: https://
www.bildwerkfrauenau.de/home.html,
Hocaoğlu, D. (2015) “Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Yerel
Ekonomilerdeki Önemi ve Tasarımın bu Endüstrilere UNCTAD (2008) “Creative Economy Report
Katkısı” Journal of Planning 2015;25(3):189–194 2008” Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/system/
doi: 10.5505/planlama.2016.55265 files/official-document/ditc20082cer_en.pdfits
continuation with the 2nd World War made to come
San, İ., (1985), “Sanat ve Eğitim”, Ankara, Turkey: up with cleaning and restoring the destruction that
Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi occurred in European cities. As Karadağ and İncedere
Yayınları, publication No:151 (2020) stated the purpose here is to arrange poor-
looking urban landscapes and to make room for new
San, İ., (1977), “Sanatsal Yaratma ve Çocukta uses with the increase in the value of these lands due
Yaratıcılık”, Ankara, Turkey: T. İş Bankası Kültür to the congestion in the urban area over time.
Yayınları, publication No: 17

Razon, N., (1990), “Yaratıcılığı Geliştirici Oyunla
Eğitim”, Çağdaş Eğitim, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi,
publication, ss. 213-221

Küçükerman, Ö. (2002). “200 yıllık Boğaziçi
Camcılık Mirası İçinde: Beykoz Camları”, İstanbul,
Turkey: Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları AŞ
Yayınları, publication (ISBN 975-7028-10-X)

Küçükerman, Ö. (2002). “200 yıllık Boğaziçi camcılık
mirası içinde: “Çeşmibülbül” İstanbul, Turkey:

336

AXIS OF URBAN IDENTITY AND
MEMORY INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
EXPERIENCES: CASE OF IZMIR
(TURKEY)

Arife KARADAĞ1 - Leman İNCEDERE2

Abstract

In Turkey, the interest in industrial heritage commenced with the increase in the
commodity value of those old industrial sites which remained idle at the city center upon
the developments that took place at the urbanization level as of the 1980s in particular.
The policies on brownfields ranged by degrees from demolition to conservation,
rehabilitation, and improvement and industrial heritage development projects are now
becoming widespread in the country. However, the disregarding of many industrial
heritage assets and the incorrect practices carried out in this process have brought about
many problems as well. This problematic situation is also related to the failure to attach
the necessary importance to the connections of industrial heritage with the urban memory
and identity by regarding the industrial heritage as an economic source. This study
aims to highlight the old industrial sites which have remained idle and which are being
used through adaptive reuse at the old industrial and commercial sites particularly in
Konak-Çankaya and Alsancak districts in İzmir – one of the early industrialization sites
of the country – and to place emphasis on their importance in the urban pattern with a
geographical approach.

1   Assoc. Prof., Ege University, Department of Geography, İzmir.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-6489-5569

2   Assist Prof. Leman Incedere, Celal Bayar University Department of Geography.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0212-6040

337

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

The city took shape with the processes going on along the origins of our culture,
history, arts, and traditions and became the place where the society was reborn by
continually undergoing change (Cravatte, 1977: 13). One of the most important factors
in the growth of cities and in their undergoing of change is doubtlessly the developments
experienced in the field of industry. The future of those large sites and buildings which
became idle upon the shutdown or movement of the industrial sites at the city centers that
became the centers for capital and production particularly throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries is being discussed more and more with every passing day.

The important industrial countries of the world developed arrangements and plans
to clean those parts of the city which were worn and which remained unserviceable in
Europe, America, and even Japan (Meiji) and many historic cities witnessed the renewal
processes from the demolition of city walls to the opening of new squares (Bandarin and
Oers, 2012: 5). Programs on cleaning these depression areas and on urban renewal were
launched and managed particularly in the European cities in the aftermath of the Second
World War by the state. Although these programs were connected with the differing of the
intra-urban land rent values, they cannot be explained merely with this economic factor.
The function of urban renewal was to lay the groundwork for the future reconstruction that
occurred in the 1960s and that began to become clear rather well in the 1970s (Smith and
Williams, 2015: 48-49). With the increase in the importance attached to urban renewal and
urban conservation, conservation studies were launched by various organizations such as
the TICCIH, the ICOMOS, and the UNESCO so as to conserve the industrial heritage. In
line with the developments experienced, the issue of industrial heritage has begun to draw
attention in the academic field as well in the last 30 years in particular (Hewison, 1987;
Alfrey and Putnam, 1992; Smith, 2001; Edensor, 2005; Bandarin and Oers, 2012; Douet,
2013; Xie, 2015; Wicke et al., 2018). The interest in the issue is further increasing under
the impact of postmodernism.

In Turkey, however, the consciousness of urban renewal and industrial heritage
took place later than that in the Western European countries with long-term industrial
traditions. There is no doubt that one cannot speak of a deindustrialization process in
Turkey in the sense experienced by the big industrial countries of Europe. The shutdown
of the old industrial sites in Turkey is concerned predominantly with the developments
experienced in technology as well as with the privatization process. The political process
taking place after the 1980s led to the shutdown of firms, collective redundancies, and
the abandonment of industrial sites and buildings and the neoliberal developments
experienced, the economic turmoil and the instability of state policies also prevented one
from attaching the necessary importance to the old industrial heritage sites. As a result of
this process, the solution of conserving the free land was chosen for the demolition of old
factory buildings and for the privatization of the lands and the problems likely to occur
in the urban pattern and also the potential opportunities concerning industrial heritage
could not be predicted. The industrial heritage sites began to draw attention during the
crisis that occurred in the urban space and when the socio-economic gains of the city in
the studies carried out with respect to the adaptive reuse of the industrial heritage sites
especially in such countries as Germany, France, England, the Netherlands, and Spain

338

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

began to be seen. Later on, a mentality which was sensitive to both industrial remains and
the problems they caused as well as to the requirement for seeking an appropriate solution
began to form.

The increased sensitivity and the consciousness of contributing to the urban
life through adaptive reuse have begun to appear on the agenda in Turkey particularly
since the 1990s and there has been an increase in the academic studies on the subject
too (Köksal, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2015; Kayın, 2001, 2009, 2013; Karadağ and İncedere,
2017). This study aims to highlight the primary sites with industrial heritage value in
İzmir – an important industrial city in Turkey particularly in the pre-Republican years and
in the early years of the Republic – and to support the transfer of the economic and social
memory of the city to the present time through adaptive reuse.

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Conservation Approach

The origination of the concept “heritage” is connected with the foundation of
modern nation states and the need for identifying their respective traditions and identities
(Bandarin and Oers, 2012: 1). Recognition of the historic urban pattern as cultural
heritage and its definition as an essential connection in the urban life and development
are quite important for site-based conservation. Urban conservation is a long-term
political, economic, and social commitment for a region in order to provide its users
with better quality of life. Industrial heritage serves many useful social, ecological, and
historical functions in terms of the conservation of the urban pattern (Edensor, 2005).
Conservation covers not only the physical urban pattern but also spatial morphology
and a social dimension which makes the urban heritage very different from the more
“objective” qualities of singular heritage (Orbaşlı, 2002: 8). As the ICOMOS- TICCIH also
emphasizes in the report (2011) it published with respect to the conservation of industrial
heritage: Conservation is not only an architectural negotiation but also an economic and
social issue. A wide variety of facilities, buildings, complexes, cities, towns, scenes and
roads witness the human activities of industrial production all around the world. This
cultural heritage is still in use in many places. While industrialization is an active process
with the feeling of historical continuity, it offers the archaeological pieces of evidence for
previous activities and technologies in other places. Industrial heritage includes engineering,
architecture and city-planning, the skills of workers and their societies, their memories, and
many social dimensions which have become tangible in their social lives besides the material
heritage related to industrial technology and processes”. Protected industrial heritage in an
urban environment provides a considerable potential for urban tourism too. As Barrera
Fernández and Hernández Escampa (2017) point out after Urry (1990) and Meethan
(1996) that, city is “a place of play and leisure” and “the urban environment itself becomes
a commodity to be sold to individual consumers and investors”, this vision might imply
that all places become potential tourist destinations.

The concept of space fundamentally rests on two features in the urban heritage
conservation approach. The first one is heritage. Heritage entails the existence of a tangible

339

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

physical form created by the humanity, whereas the second one also includes an immaterial
psychological atmosphere unique to this form. Moreover, historic buildings frequently
qualify as a strong main material which affects the formation of a place. The cultural
memory of a city is one of the strongest factors that will decide on which buildings or
sites will go beyond merely being spatial structures (Castello, 2006: 64) because a human
being gives a meaning to the environment or the city he/she inhabits and to its physical
structure, chooses them, and organizes them in his/her mind (Göregenli, 2015: 17). The
review that Lineu Castello (2006) carried out on a gasometer facility located in Porto
Alegre in the southernmost region of Brazil by employing the environmental perception
techniques is striking in this line. The study was conducted at two different times. The
facility was an idle building which was encircled by an empty area and which was closed
for use in 1986, when the first study was carried out. The next study was performed in 1995
following the rehabilitation of the building and the qualification of the surrounding areas
by applying some minimalist strategies which mostly addressed the basic structure of the
building. In this process, the building acquired new functional names and began to work
as a multifunctional activity center which housed such facilities as a cinema, a theater,
an art gallery, a library, and a café. In the study, it was concluded that the old gasometer
facility became a space of unexpected importance for the city following conservation and
rehabilitation. Having remained derelict at the city center, this old site therefore acquired
a tag as a true and living place.

Especially in the last fifty years, the concept of urban conservation has developed
into a universally acknowledged urban policy-making field from a practice confined
to few historic sites which were mostly European-centered (Bandarin, 2016: 341). The
strongest approach to the conservation of urban heritage is to emphasize the role that
historic buildings may play in the revival of those sites which have lost their economic and
social liveliness (Rojas, 1999: 23). A book entitled “Bright Future: The Re-use of Industrial
Buildings” was published by Binney et al. (1990), who highlighted the reuse of buildings
in terms of conservation and change and it was stressed in the book that the interest
in and the awareness of the issue were rather limited then. Binney et al. tried to draw
people’s attention to the possibilities of reusing old industrial depots and factories and
put emphasis on the importance of these studies in the adaptive reuse of old industrial
buildings and in making the industrialization memory of the city continuous with the
present life. As expressed by Binney et al., industrial buildings are robust and permanent
and are sites convenient for adaptive reuse in this respect. What is more important is the
fact that the old industrial plants or sites concerned are the most important witnesses of
the industrialization processes of the countries and of the cities where they are located.
Within this framework, conservation of the old industrial heritage sites and buildings in
İzmir – our study area – and the maintaining of them as part of the everyday life of today’s
city dwellers are of profound importance for the sustainability of the urban memory.

340

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Historical Development Process of the Industrial Heritage
Sites and Buildings at the City Center of İzmir

The issue “conservation of industrial heritage”, which began to be discussed in
Turkey in the 1990s, is a quite new concept for İzmir too. As Evliya Çelebi also stressed in
his Seyahatname (Travel Book), İzmir, which has stood out with its commercial identity
since its foundation, is an important seaport that was intertwined first with trade and
then with industry and trade throughout history. Having come to the fore largely with
trade and the small manufacturing industry until the 15th century, the city entered a
rapid development process particularly after the 17th century and became an important
commercial and industrial center in Anatolia. The industrialization process of the city
first of all commenced with the establishment of small enterprises in the Ottoman period.
Likewise, according to the Yearbook of Aydın, dated 1890, there were 27 factories and 143
inns in İzmir. Although a gap occurred in the economic life of the city upon the fact that
the Greek and Armenian minorities with a significant place in the urban economy left
the city in the aftermath of the Turkish War of Independence, this did not last very long.
After the Greeks and the Armenians had left the city, the local bourgeoisie found a larger
range of action and the way was paved for İzmir’s carrying on its development on sounder
foundations in Republican Turkey (Martal, 1992). Whilst there were only 53 industrial
plants which were able to carry on their function in İzmir in the 1913-1915 under the
influence of the wars experienced, this figure reached 60 in 1923 (Yetkin, 2001).

Industry had an important place in the economic programs of the governments
set up after the termination of the atmosphere of war experienced by the country and the
foundation of the Republic of Turkey. To support industry increasingly, “the Law on the
Stimulation of Industry (Teşvik-i Sanayi Kanunu)” was enacted on 28 May 1927 and with
this law, positive developments also started in İzmir – the biggest center of the Turkish
industry after İstanbul. The number of factories employing more than 10 workers in İzmir
rose to 196 in 1927. According to the statistics of 1929 prepared by the province of İzmir,
the Law on the Stimulation of Industry was influential on the establishment of 162 of
these factories. The number of factories employing more than 20 workers rose to 181 in
1932 (Serçe, 2015). The city experienced a rapid development process particularly in the
1950s and the number of industrial plants employing 10 and more workers reached up to
5,677. In 1961, the number of plants employing 20 and more workers in the city this time
reached 110 (Tümertekin, 1961).

Another matter which is more important than the quantitative increase in industrial
plants is the various impacts of selection of the locations at which these multiplied
industrial plants would be established on the urban development areas. The selection of
the locations for industrial plants is quite effective in terms of environmental and social
parameters. Therefore, good planning is quite essential in terms of urban development.
When we consider the historical development of İzmir, we see that many city plans were
made about the city. The map of İzmir and its vicinity that Tournefort provided in his
travel book in the early 18th century and that primarily reminds one of a sketch (1), the

341

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Source: Ahmet Piriştina city archive by İzmir metropolitan municipality (api̇ kam), 2018

city map that is quite important in terms of understanding the settlement structure of the
city before the fires of 1841 and 1846 and that Graves organized and prepared without any
scale in 1836 (2) and the Danger-Prost Plan, whereby Dangers and Prost redesigned the
city as a whole in 1924 and which was also used as a draft in the plans subsequently made
for İzmir, (3) are quite important among them (Figure 1, 2, 3).

At this point, it will be useful to digress on the Danger-Prost Plan and the master
plan of İzmir organized in 1948 by French Architect Le Corbusier so as to better understand
the old industrial sites on the urban scale, for it is possible to clearly see the impacts of the
plans on the city today as well.

It is striking that Konak and Alsancak were considered the focal development lines
on Le Corbusier’s Plan and that the sites at which industrial sites were planned to develop
overlap the old industrial sites at the present. The areas indicated in blue on Le Corbusier’s
Plan coincide with Konak, Alsancak, Halkapınar, and Bostanlı, where the old industrial
sites are concentrated today.

It is of extreme importance to understand the transformation the old industrial
sites underwent in the city over time and to soundly discuss the studies of articulating
these sites with the urban life by reorganizing them. The readings to this end will also

342

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 4. The city plan of İzmir by Le Corbusier, 1948
Source: Karadağ, 2000.

contribute to understanding at which sites the industrial sites in İzmir were established
first, by the production of what sectors they were represented, and whether there was
any network of relationships with each other in the sense of production, raw materials,
marketing or recycling. As it will also be seen in the examples of plans of the 18th and
19th centuries about the city, İzmir has gained importance and developed as a seaport
since the early periods of its foundation. The Customs Building, Kızlarağası Inn, the Flour
production facilities, the tobacco depots, the Water Factory and the Gasworks with an
important place in the trade of the city and the development of the small industry in this
period are essential. Besides the small industrial sites in Konak-Çankaya district, it is seen
that such enterprises as Turyağ (1916), Sümerbank (1946), the Electricity Factory (1926),
and Şark Sanayi (the Oriental Industry) (1925), which required a larger area, began to be
concentrated between Alsancak and Çınarlı in the period that had lasted until the 1950s.

The industrial establishments began to be concentrated in the area extending
between Halkapınar and Çınarlı-Bayraklı-Bornova at the city center of İzmir in the 1950-
1960 period. The Wine and Ethyl Alcohol Works (1950), Piyale Pasta Factory (1953),
Kula Mensucat (Textile) Factory (1951), the Flour Factories and DYO Paint Factory were
established in this period. Furthermore, ÇİMENTAŞ and METAŞ factories, established
in Işıklar, Bornova in 1953 and 1956, are also among the important establishments of the
period. However, it is seen that the large establishments established after 1960 preferred
outside the municipal boundaries of İzmir.

Today Konak, Pasaport, Kemeraltı and Çankaya quarters are important in that
they are the first districts where small industrial and depot sites were established in
İzmir. Besides these sites, the Hinterland of Alsancak Port expanded with the increase

343

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

in population over time particularly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and, unlike
the Konak and Çankaya lines, the area currently remaining between Liman Avenue and
Şehitler Avenue has stood out as the area where the larger-sized industrial plants of the
period are located.

1 The Old Gasworks
2 The Old Flour Factory
3 The Old Tobacco Depot of TEKEL
4 Halkapınar Wine and Ethyl Alcohol Works
5 Alsancak Silo of the TMO (the Soil Products Office)
6 Alsancak Flour Mill
7 The Old Electricity Factory
8 İzmir Şark Sanayi (İzmir Oriental Industry)
9 Sümerbank Basma Müessesesi (Sümerbank Printed Cloth Establishment)
10 The Cigarette Factory of TEKEL

Since İzmir remained within the same boundaries in terms of plan for a certain
period, the sprawling zone of the traditional structure also remained limited. The urban
pattern and industrial zone experienced until the early 20th century and having taken
shape in the century preceding it substantially disappeared over time with the great fire
in 1922 and the subsequent development movements. The evacuation and degeneration
concerned are ongoing at the same speed today as well. This also complicates the process
of conservation and adaptive reuse of the industrial heritage in the city (Kuban, 2009).

Within the scope of the reuse and restoration of old industrial sites and industrial
plants, Alsancak, Konak, Pasaport, Halkapınar, Bayraklı and Bornova quarters – the areas
where industry was concentrated in İzmir particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries –
constitute the focal point of our study. The old industrial sites and buildings which have
been able to survive up to the present time despite the fires, the earthquakes, and the
socio-spatial transformation created by neoliberalism and which have found a differing
place for themselves in the new urban life through adaptive reuse in the contemporary
urban pattern of İzmir have been going on casting light in these areas since the past of the
city. Nevertheless, there are also very valuable industrial heritage buildings which are idle
at the city center and which have not undergone any conservation intervention yet.

344

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 5. The industrial heritage sites and buildings located in the Hinterland of the Port

Industrial heritage sites and buildings in the
hinterland of Alsancak Port

The buildings in the Hinterland of the Port, which was shown as the future business
center and development area of İzmir with the development plans prepared with Resolution
No. 05/82 in 2003 by the Assembly of İzmir Metropolitan Municipality (Çıkış, 2009: 12)
and which is on the threshold of a different development process with this locationof its,
make up an important industrial complex. As also seen in Figure 5, the old industrial
sites cover a quite important place in the region. The factory and depot buildings in the
region form heritage integrity, which is a feature that provides an advantage in terms of the
planning studies to be performed for conservation and adaptive reuse.

Located in the Hinterland of the Port, the Gasworks, the Old Flour Factory, the
Depots of Tekel Tobacco Enterprise and Alsancak Flour Mill are buildings which were
restored and included in the urban life with different uses. Halkapınar Wine and Ethyl
Alcohol Works is at the project stage. The Silos of the TMO (the Soil Products Office)
were painted and intended to be adapted to the urban pattern. However, Sümerbank
Basma Sanayi (Sümerbank Printed Cloth Industry), Şark Sanayi (Oriental Industry), the
Cigarette Factory of TEKEL, the Electricity Factory and the Old Water Depots are still
idle, although they appear on the agenda with different projects.

The Old Gasworks: The Gasworks was put into operation in Alsancak in 1867 by
an English company. Annexes to the gasworks made of 6 horizontal kilns and a gasometer
of 15,000 m3 when established, were later built by the municipality (Gedikler, 2012: 89).
Today the facility is the most beautiful example of the reuse of old industrial sites and
buildings in İzmir.

345

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Although the gas network was damaged at the time of war and the use of electricity
gained importance in the process, the facility continued its activities in the Republican
period as well and was transferred to the municipality in 1935. The Industrial Complex
of the Gasworks (Photos 1 and 2) had remained open with various modernization studies
and functional alterations until 1994 and was registered within the scope of industrial
heritage in 1998 by İzmir Board No. 1 for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural
Properties. After the Industrial Complex of the Gasworks had remained idle for a while,
it was proposed as a cultural and entertainment center in 2003 and the complex, whose
project tender was held in 2005 and whose implementation tender was held in 2008, was
put into service as of 2009 (Kayın and Şimşek, 2009).

Main function zones were determined in the areas encircling the buildings in the
process of adaptive reuse of the Gasworks. With an approach that respected the heritage of the
site where it was located, it was intended to develop details in order for the site to become a
living and modern site without remaining idle. By enriching the surroundings of the cafeteria
with water elements, it was intended to turn it into an attraction and it was determined as
an eating & drinking zone. The area in front of the new sales units with a disassembled and
light building system to support the existing sales unit was designed as a shopping zone; the

Photo 1. The Gasworks, (1940). Photo 2. From the Gasworks, (2018).
Source: E. Uludağ Source: L. İncedere.

surroundings of the water depot were designed as a square to create an assembling area and
an attraction; the surroundings of the new building, which was structurally different within
the site, were designed as an entertainment zone; and the area in front of the exhibition halls
and the workshop was designed as a cultural zone. The area next to the exhibition hall that
occupied a large place within the site was covered with lawn and put into service as an open-
air view area for visual arts (Çelikoğlu et al., 2009). The gasworks has become one of the most
intensively used areas of İzmir as its social and cultural activation space today.

The Old Flour Factory: Although the date of construction of the factory on
Şehitler Avenue at Halkapınar Neighborhood is not known exactly, it is supposed that
it was constructed in the last quarter of the 1800s. The factory buildings are composed
of 2 blocks, with each being 4-storey (Photos 3 and 4). One of the blocks was used as the
TEDAŞ building and the other one as the DGM (the State Security Court) building for
a while. The restoration projects prepared concerning the building were approved in the

346

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 3. The Old Flour Factory, (1950). Photo 4. The Old Flour Factory, (2018).
Source: http://www.izmirmag.net/ *The photograph was taken by A. Karadağ.

same year by İzmir Regional Board No. 1 for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural
Properties affiliated to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the first stage of the
restoration practice was realized in 2007 and 2008. Within this scope, the exterior faces of
the buildings were cleaned and cleared of the interventions and annexes that were made in
the late period and that were contrary to the original building (Bozdemir, 2011).

As Kent College for a while with the restorations carried out, the building was
converted into an educational institution affiliated to the Metropolitan Municipality
under the name “Vocational Factory” upon the new arrangements that commenced in
2014. According to the information we obtained in our interview with Ahmet Ayvaz,
the coordinator of the institution, it is planned to provide certified courses in the field
of technical research for high school and university students as well as engineers in the
institution. The building is being reorganized within the scope of this training.

Nevertheless, only the exterior faces of this building, which has survived up to the
present time by containing the traces of history on it for long years, were conserved in the
process of both old and new arrangements, but no element with respect to the use of the
building as a factory was conserved or exhibited. This leads to the loss of memory about
the original pattern of the building.

The Old Tobacco Depot of TEKEL: Storage and industrial functions began to
develop around Alsancak Port as of the second half of the 19th century (Photo 5) and
the depot buildings located at two different
neighboring development blocks and at
different parcels in Alsancak were integrated
with a single function by the administration
of TEKEL in order to meet the needs
then. Having passed to the ownership of
Spierer Tütün İhracat Sanayi AŞ in 1940,
the building had been used as a rented
building until 1993 by the administration
of TEKEL and passed to the ownership
of the Directorate General for TEKEL on
25.08.1993. Upon the privatization of the Photo 5. The building of the architectural center.
Source: http://www.izmirdergisi.com/tr/

347

Axis of Urban Identity and Memory Industrial Heritage... Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

administration of TEKEL in the late 1990s, these depots in the city became nonfunctional,
were evacuated, and remained idle. With the initiatives by the Chamber of Architects, the
old depot buildings of TEKEL were evaluated within the scope of their importance for
the urban history of İzmir and the features of the development of the storage functions
around the port in the spatial formation of the city on 20.10.2003 by İzmir Regional
Board No. 1 for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Properties and it was decided
to conserve and register them in terms of the
urban memory. In the following period, it was
decided to provide the depot building with
the function as an architectural center and the
branch service building. Within the scope of
structural properties and static requirements,
projects were prepared by preserving the
exterior walls of the building as well as the
spatial construct and forms determined on the
building survey inside (Topal, 2013, Photo 6).

A conference hall, an activity office, Photo 6. The building of the architectural center, (2018).
an exhibition hall, a cafeteria, a library, a unit Source: L. İncedere.
for the board of directors and a supervision
unit were designed inside the depot with
the renovations performed. The old depot
building has acquired its place in the city
as a successful example of adaptive reuse
where various activities such as conferences,
exhibitions, and movie screening activities are
organized today and which has been actively
adapted to the urban life.

Halkapınar Wine and Ethyl Alcohol Works: Photo 7. Halkapınar Wine and Ethyl Alcohol Works
The first alcoholic drink works in Turkey was before Mahall Bomonti Project (2017).
established in Bomonti, İstanbul in 1890, Source: L. İncedere.
followed by the brewery established again in
Bomonti in 1908. In 1912, these two works Photo 8. A View of the Works in the Construction Process
were merged with the enterprise established of Mahall Bomonti Project, (2018).
in Halkapınar in the 19th century by Germans Source: L. İncedere.
and began to operate in İzmir (Photo 7).
These works were purchased in 1940 by the
administration of TEKEL and wine also began
to be produced at the enterprise in the following
periods (Ertin, 1998). Workshops and depots
were established within Halkapınar Wine and
Ethyl Alcohol Works, which was located close
to Alsancak-Halkapınar station, and the works
was purchased in 1952 by the state (Gedikler,

348