INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE IN THE URBAN IDENTITY AND MEMORY AXIS

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Early Republican Industrial Structures and the Initiatives of
Local Merchant Families (1923-1950)

Antalya’s economy, industrial production, and industry were negatively affected
by war. The majority of the population of Antalya continued agricultural activities in
the Early Republic. Unlike the Late Ottoman Period, the local merchant families joined
the industrialization movement and started to establish various industrial facilities. The
factories established in the city in the Early Republic Period can be listed as Hydroelectric
Plant, Sericulture School and Station (İpekböcekçiliği Mektebi ve İstasyonu), West
Mediterranean Agricultural Research Center (BATEM), Tekirova Chrome Mining Plant,
ice plants, flour mills, a rice mill, a pasta factory, and a woodworking factory.

The flour mill at marina

Flour Mill was established Figure 7. Flour Mill at Marina, 1926
in Kaleiçi by the Special Provincial Source: Çimrin, 2017
Administration in 1926 (Figure 7).
Compared to the privately-owned mills,
the capacity of the factory was quite high.
Like other mills, it was also founded
on one of the forks of Düden River.
During the fire in 1944, the building was
damaged. It was demolished in the 1980s
during the renovation of the Marina.

The hydroelectric plant

The hydroelectric power plant,
established on cliffs in 1928. It was
located on the forks of the Düden stream
and transformed the natural source to
electricity for public use. It served until
the mid-1970s, due to reduction of the
water and technical problems, the plant
was closed in 1975. Today it is on the list
of immovable cultural property in need of
protection.

Masonry walls, concrete grading, Figure 8. Hydroelectric Plant
and steel turbine remains have survived Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020.
from the power plant. The facade
elements and roof cover of the building
had disappeared (Figure 8).

399

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

The mursi rice mill and warehouse

Bileydizade Mehmet Mursi Farm which was established by one of the local
merchants, on the land near Boğaçayı in the first years of the Republic was the first place
to produce rice-plant was in 1925. Rice mill, warehouse, customs building, and pier were
built in this period on the farmland. The farm was visited by Atatürk in 1930 and by
İsmet İnönü in 1943. Cotton production started after the 1950s, but the farm has lost its
importance after the 1970s.

Of all the buildings of the farm Figure 9. Rice mill and warehouse (Archive of the
complex, only two have survived to this Antalya Council for the Conservation of Cultural
day. These structures are the factory where Property-ACCCP)
the paddy is processed and the warehouse
where the products are stored (Figure 9).
Today they are on the list of immovable
cultural property in need of protection.
These buildings were restored in 2005
as commercial buildings and today, the
warehouse serves as a gym.

The Adil Aşçıoğlu ice plant

The ice plant was built near Figure 10. Adil Aşçıoğlu ice plant, 1935
the Hıdırlık Tower in 1933 to meet the Source: Çimrin, 2017
ice needs of the city in the Republican
Period (Çimrin, 2017) (Figure 10). It
was located, parallel to the sea like other
industrial buildings on the cliffs. The
building, which was used until 1965, was
demolished later.

The sericulture station

Sericulture Station was established Figure 11. Sericulture station and school
in Karaalioğlu Park in 1934 to revive Source: http://wowturkey.com/forum
sericulture which had been one of
the developed facilities in Antalya in
the nineteenth century (Figure 11). It
started operating as fully organized in
1936 (Deniz, 2015). The station and the
sericulture school next to it were used
until the 1950s. The buildings survive till
today, restored and re-functioned in 2020.

400

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

West mediterranean agricultural research center (BATEM)

The West Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute (BATEM) was formed
by the merger of 5 research organizations working in different fields of agriculture in
Antalya at different times. It was one of the examples of research institutes and stations
opened throughout the country in order to increase productivity and ensure development
in agriculture in the early Republican Period.

The first of these five research centers, Citrus Tree Station was established on a
40 decare land of the Provincial Special Administration of Antalya in order to carry out
education and research activities in the field of agriculture. The station has been working
on citrus since 1934. The station was designed as a complex which constitutes industrial
buildings, housing units, and social infrastructure placed together (Figure 12,13,14).
Today almost all of the buildings are on the list of immovable cultural property in need
of protection.

Figure 12. Citrus tree station complex
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

401

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Figure 13. Jam factory
Source: BATEM archive

The second of these research Figure 14. Packaging factory
centers, Antalya Rice-Plant Experiment Source: BATEM archive
Station was established near Aksu River
in 1933. Later the field of research of
the station was expanded to tropical
and subtropical plants. New products as
cotton, oats, alfalfa, rice, peanuts, sesame,
and castor oil were produced. The station
was designed as a complex in which
industrial buildings, housing units, and
social infrastructure were placed together
as in Citrus Tree Station. In the years when
cotton production became important, two
factories and 18 warehouses serving them
were built within the institute (Çetin,
2012) (Figure 15). 96 of 103 buildings on
the campus were demolished in 2013 due
to the EXPO 2016 area arrangement.

The Tekirova chrome Figure 15. Cotton gin building
mining plant Source: Çetin, 2012)

Tekirova Chrome Mining Plant was the only mining plant of the early Republican
Antalya. The buildings of the complex; buildings for production, storage, and transportation
as well as workers’ houses were built in 1938. (Figure 16). Raw material supplied from the
northern slopes was first accumulated in the stock area and then subjected to the breaking
process with the machines in the factory. Today industrial and storage buildings and some
of the houses are on the list of immovable cultural property in need of protection.

402

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 16. Tekirova chrome mining plant, 2014 (Archive of the Antalya Council for the Conservation of
Cultural Property-ACCCP)

The mete cotton ginnery plant

The factory was located on the cliffs in the coastal line in the city center, on the
forks of the Düden Stream similar to other mills in Fener Mevkii. While the building
had been used as a flour mill in the 1930s, then it became a rice factory, gin factory, tire
workshop, and warehouse respectively until the 1970s (Bostanoğlu, 2004). The building
complex consisting of the main building and its annexes are located in relation to each
other at different levels (Figure 17).

Considering the distribution of
the industrial buildings built in the Early
Republic Period in the city, it is seen that
the water axis, on which most of the late
Ottoman industrial buildings were located,
started to lose its former importance.
Replacing hydroelectric energy with new
energy sources such as electricity, motor, and
steam power gave freedom to industrialists
in choosing the locations. Thus, industrial
buildings began to be built away from
water axes. On the other hand, proximity Figure 17. Mete cotton gin building
to sea and road transportation axes and Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020
raw material resources has maintained its
importance. In particular, developments in
highway transportation, such as the construction of roads and bridges that provide access
to Antalya’s Manavgat region have made it possible to establish facilities far from the
city center. In the early Republican Period, the traditional industrial buildings established
by local entrepreneurs in small areas were replaced by large-scale industrial complexes
established within the framework of a planned organization under the control of the state.
These industrial areas were designed as complex in which industrial buildings, housing
units, and social infrastructure were placed together. It is seen that reinforced concrete
and steel carcass systems were used in addition to the masonry construction technique.

403

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

The classical factory facades with gable roofs and triangular pediments continued to be
used in this period. In addition to these, buildings with flat roofs and cubical masses were
started to be used as modernist forms. It is possible to follow the traces of Republican
Period modernism on the façades of the Sericulture School and the buildings in BATEM.

The Period of Cooperatives (1950-1980)

The industrialization attempts of the 40’s were interrupted after the outbreak of
World War II and Ataturk’s death. Antalya’s economy had also been affected by the
country’s adverse economic conditions. The transition to the multi-party system and
new liberal economic policies of the 1950s led to an increase in industrialization in
Antalya as in all of Turkey. After the 1950s, the cooperative movements that stagnated
during the Second World War were revived; and in the 1961 constitution, supporting
cooperatives were directly included among the duties of the state (Hazar, 1990). Under
these circumstances, cooperatives and their related companies played an active role in
the establishment of industrial facilities, especially in textile, electricity, and mining
industries. According to the Report of Antalya Master Plan in 1977, most of the enterprises
established between 1950-1980 were cooperatives or their related companies. Some of
these were Union of Cooperatives for Cotton and Citrus Production and Sale (Antbirlik),
Cotton and Oil Corporation (Pamuk ve Yağ Sanayi Türk Anonim Şirketi), Antalya Cotton
Weaving Corporation (Antalya Pamuklu Dokuma Sanayi Türk Anonim Şirketi), Kepez
Electricity Corporation (Antalya Havalisi Elektrik Santralleri Türk Anonim Şirketi)
(Gönüllü, 2010).

The union of cotton and citrus production and sale cooperatives
(antbirlik)

Union of Cooperatives for Cotton and Citrus Production and Sale Factories
(Antbirlik) was established in 1952 by 212 partners in order to ensure agricultural
development (Gönüllü, 2010). Cotton oil, gin, and yarn factories were built between
1950-1973. According to the data obtained from the Antalya Master Plan Report dated
1977, 8 factories were established in the city center and districts. Aksu Yarn Factory,
which is among these factories, was built in 1973 and continued its activities until 2009
(Figure 18).

The battery factory

the Battery Factory (Pil Fabrikası) was established to meet the battery demand of
the Turkish Land Forces (Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı) in 1976 and closed in the 2000s.
The area was designed as a settlement that consists of factories, administrative, social,
and leisure spaces. The complex includes housing, a social center, sports areas, open-air
movie theatre, pools, and service units (Eriz, 2016) (Figure 19 and 20).

404

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 18. Aksu Yarn Factory (Archive of the Antalya Council for the Conservation of
Cultural Property)

The complex was designed in a rational way that different functions were grouped
together. Privacy, vehicle, and pedestrian traffic had been taken into consideration in the
settlement of building groups. In the design of the complex, the factories, storage, and
administrative buildings were located close to the main road to the west of the campus,
while the accommodation and social spaces were built in the east of the campus, as far as
possible from the rumble of the production sections.

The ferrochrome and carbide factory

The Ferrochrome and Carbide Factory which is Turkey’s first ferrochrome factory
was established in 1957 with a foreign and domestic capital partnership to produce
ferrochrome and carbide in Kepez district of Antalya. It continues its mining activities
today (Figure 21 and 22). The complex includes production sections, housing, social
spaces, service units, and administrative units. Houses are located far from the main
factory. The industrial buildings, warehouses, and housing spaces were built in the early
years of the factory complex. In the following periods, new buildings were constructed
on the requirements.

The guayule rubber factory

Rubber (Kauçuk) Factory was established next to Cotton Weaving Factory in
order to produce guayule rubber and promote the production of guayule in the farms in
1959. The factory was closed in the late 1960s due to the failure to achieve the desired
success in rubber production (Çimrin, 2007). The production spaces of the factory which
lost their function were used as the warehouse of the Battery Factory that was established
on the same plot in 1976. (Eriz, 2016) (Figure 23).

405

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Figure 19. The battery factory
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

Figure 20. The battery factory
Source: Eriz, 2016

Oil factory

Oil Factory was established in Kepez, Fabrikalar District, in the southeast of the
Weaving Factory in 1967 for the production of vegetable oil from cottonseed (Antalya
Provincial Yearbook, 1967). It was completed in 1969 and started production in the same
year. The factory was closed in the 1990s. After the demolition of the factory, a shopping
center was built in its place (Figure 24).

406

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

The vakıf olive groving
complex

The cotton and Oil Factory

Complex was established in Kepez in

the early 1950s. Agricultural activities

such as growing olive, citrus, carob,

and pistachio, have been carried out

in the region since the 1930s by the

General Directorate of Foundations

(Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü). In the

1960s, industrial buildings were

Figure 21. Ferrochrome and carbide factory built for the production of pickled
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020 olive, olive oil, and soap. The area
was designed as a settlement that

consists of factories, administrative

and housing spaces. The olive factory has started its operations in 1965. The building

complex is on the list of immovable cultural property in need of protection (Figure 25

and 26).

Figure 22. Ferrochrome and carbide factory complex
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

Figure 23. Guayule rubber factory

407

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Figure 24. Oil factory, 1972 The cotton weaving factory
Source: https://www.british-history.ac.uk
complex

Cotton Weaving Factory was
established in 1956 on a land of 488 decares
in Kepez District in order to evaluate the
increasing amount of cotton produced after
mechanization and to solve the unemployment
problem in the city. The production was
started in 1961. It was established by the
cooperation of the private sector and the

Figure 25. Antalya foundation olive grove complex
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

state-owned economic enterprise, the Sümerbank. It was an area that reflects the social,
economic, and architectural characteristics of the Republican Period and has become the
symbol of the industrialization period of Antalya. Although it was established at the end
of the 1950s, it was built using a holistic organization chart and modernist architectural
language in which the ideology and architecture of the Early Republican Period can be
followed.

Cotton Weaving Factory Complex was designed in a rational way to meet the
needs of the employees. It became an imported medium to create a modernized lifestyle.
It included administrative, residential, social, and educational units besides the production
spaces. Different types of spaces were grouped and placed in a geometric order in the area.

408

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 26. Olive oil factory
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

Figure 27. The arial view of the cotton weaving factory complex
Source: http://www.pullman museum.org

Apart from the buildings and roads, the landscape and green areas were also in the
complex. As a result of the afforestation works that started with the establishment of the
campus, the factory complex became one of the largest green areas in the Kepez District
(Figure 27,28).

Discussion and Conclusions

The Early Republic was a period when the newly established nation-state
implemented the economic development and modernization project in order to raise the
nation to the “level of contemporary civilizations”. Within the scope of the modernization
project carried out by the state after the proclamation of the Republic, it was aimed to
restructure the physical environment as well as the economic, cultural, and social
spheres. In this process, almost every city in Turkey has initiated a reconstruction process.

409

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Figure 28. Site plan of the cotton weaving factory (Archive of the Antalya Council for the
Conservation of Cultural Property-ACCCP)

During the period from the foundation of the Republic to the 1950s, it is seen that
the state will was effective in the structuring of the physical environment, and within this
scope, public and industrial buildings and transportation networks were constructed. Like
all of these construction attempts, industrial campuses and structures targeted the social
and economic transformation as well as the modernist transformation of cities. As channels
through which the new ideas of the Republic were distributed to the country, industrial
complexes also aimed to produce modernist space together with modern individuals by
providing the connection between the “center” and the “periphery” (Zeybekoğlu, 2009).

As Bilgin has stated (1998), in addition to the production and storage spaces,
state-owned industrial campuses were planned as a complete and closed modern colonies,
meeting all the needs of their employees such as socialization and residence. However, in
cases where these did not exist or were insufficient, labor established new neighborhoods
around the factories by establishing cooperatives or slum areas. These areas have turned
into legal settlements with the provision of infrastructure and social facilities.

410

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Various social and cultural service units have been established in order to meet
the labor needs. Kindergartens and primary schools were built on or around the factory
premises to provide care for the children of the employees. These units and even
neighborhoods were named after the factories they were founded around. Likewise, in
Antalya, the neighbourhoods around the industrial zones named after factories such as
Dokuma District, Factories Region, Narenciye Quarter, etc. Moreover, the region to
be described as the first industrial zone in the center of Antalya is today, still known
as “Değirmenönü” (mill front) since the oldest mills of the city are located there. As
Çimrin conveyed (2017), there were six flour mills, side by side on Değirmenönü Street.
Although these buildings survived until the 1970s, there is no other mill except one that
has been restored and re-functionalized. These street and neighborhood names have
still existed in the collective memory even though most of the industrial buildings built
in the late Ottoman Period were destroyed during the war and some of the remaining
structures have disappeared after tourism breakthrough after 1980s. On the other hand,
the buildings survived until today do not provide enough technological and architectural
data to remember. Most of the citizens do not know the names or functions of these old
ruins. Even the renovation projects do not refresh the memory since they do not value the
history of the building. For instance, the Gazhane building which is re-functionalized as
restaurant today does not conserved its original name.

On the other hand, although the only surviving mill of Değirmenönü-the first
industrial zone in the center of Antalya-has been restored and re-functionalized under its
original name; it still could not give clues to the users about the history of its hydro powered
industrial mechanism since forks of Düden stream was covered up and transformed into
urban arteries in 1980’s. This covering up operation also made citizens lost the clues
about the geographical nature of the city. However, the distribution of the factories in the
city was concentrated on the water and transportation axes. The factories were located on
the forks of the Düden stream, which flowed from the city center to the sea, especially
in order to provide the necessary energy from water power. But these insensitive urban
interventions made it difficult for citizens to read the industrial traces and eventually
caused urban amnesia.

The implicit traces of industry in Antalya can be traced not only in collective
memory but also in urban macroform. It is seen that the city, which developed in and around
the city walls before the industry, rapidly expanded beyond the walls with the start of
industrialization, and new residential areas were formed far from the city center. The
population of Antalya, which was 27,525 as of 1950, when the rapid industrialization
started, increased to 130,774 in 1975 with the completion of industrial settlements in the
region (Manavoğlu ve Kutlu 2010). Besides, the population growth not only affected the
area where the factories were founded but also the structure of the city center.

As seen in Figure 29, the current development axis of the city inclined towards
this region after the establishment of the Weaving Factory. The factory, which was located
in the northwest of the city, outside the urban area and detached from it at the time of its
establishment, had initiated a migration tendency to the city after it was actively put into

411

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Figure 29. Aerial photographs showing the development of the city before and after the
establishment of the Weaving Factory. left 1957; right 1977
Source: Barbaros Akay, 2020

operation. With the increase in population, the areas around were surrounded by residential
fabric. Eventually in 1969, the area was included within the limits of new urban planning.
In other words, together with the new industries formed around, the Weaving Factory
Complex had been determinant in the orientation of urban development.

In conclusion, industry was the main agents of urbanization in the 20th century.
Although the economical means of urban life altered industry has importance on urban
history and collective memory. Industrial structures -even in single building or in
industrial complex scale- affected urban development in various levels hence, they were
as Zeybekoğlu (2009) states the “factories producing cities” of the 20th century.

412

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

References Deniz, M. (2015). Kapatılan Antalya İpekböcekçilik
Mektebi ve Antalya’da İpekçilik, Türk ve İslam
Antalya Provincial Yearbook, (1967). Office of the Dünyası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2: 319-327.
Governership of Antalya, 331 s.
Dinç, K. ve Bakırcılar, A. B. (2012). Geçmişten
Arıtan, Ö. (2004). Kapitalist Sosyalist Modernleşme Günümüze Antalya Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası. Antalya
Modellerinin Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası Kültür Yayını, Antalya.
Mimarlığı’nın Biçimlenişine Etkileri-Sümerbank
KİT Yerleşkeleri Üzerinden Yeni Bir Anlamlandırma Eriz, Ö. (2016). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Endüstri
Denemesi. Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Yapılarının Kültürel Miras Bağlamında İncelenmesi:
İzmir, 281 s. Antalya Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Süleyman
Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta, 108 s.
Arıtan, Ö. ve Karatosun M. (2010). 1950 Öncesi ve
Sonrası Cumhuriyet Sanayileşmesi Işığında Aydın Gönüllü, A. R. (2008). Demokrat Parti Döneminde
Tekstil Yerleşkesi, Mimarlık, 355(1): 52-59. Antalya (1950-1960), Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiye
Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, 347s, İstanbul.
Aslanoğlu, İ. (2010). Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi
Mimarlığı (1923-1938) Bilge Kültür Sanat Yayınları, Hazar, N. (1990). Kooperatifçilik Tarihi, Türk
Ankara, 446 s. Kooperatifçilik Eğitim Vakfı Yayınları.

Barışta, L. (1938). Tekirova Krom Madenleri. Türk Kepenek, Y. ve Yentürk, N. (1996). Türkiye
Akdeniz Dergisi, 11-12(1): 114-115. Ekonomisi. Remzi Kitapevi, İstanbul, 563s.

Barbaros Akay, E. (2020). Antalya’da Sanayileşme Kıraç, B. (2001). Türkiye’deki Tarihi Sanayi Yapılarının
Süreci Ve Mekânsal Etkileri: Antalya Dokuma Günümüz Koşullarına Göre Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi
Fabrikasi Yerleşkesi Örneği, Akdeniz University, Konusunda Bir Yöntem Araştırması. Doktora tezi,
Unpublished Master Thesis. Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 281 s.

Benevolo, L. (2006). Avrupa Tarihinde Kentler. Manavoğlu, E. ve Kutlu, N. Ö. (2010). Antalya
Literatür Yayınları, İstanbul, 240 s. Kenti’nin 1950’den Günümüze Kentleşme Sürecinin
Değerlendirilmesi. In: Atılgan, A. K. (Ed.), Dünden
Benevolo, L. (1981). Modern Mimarlığın Tarihi. Bugüne Antalya.
Çevre Yayınları, İstanbul, 294 s.
Mumford, L. (2007). Tarih Boyunca Kent; Kökenleri,
Bilgin, İ. (1998). Modernleşmenin ve Toplumsal Geçirdiği Dönüşümler ve Geleceği. Ayrıntı Yayınları,
Hareketliliğin Yörüngesinde Cumhuriyetin İmarı. In: İstanbul, 736 s.
Sey, Y. (Ed.), 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık,
Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul, ss. 25-39. Ökçün, A.G. (1997). Osmanlı Sanayii 1913-1915
Yılları Sanayi İstatistiki. Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu,
Boratav, K. (2004). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi. Ankara: Ankara, 198s.
İmge Kitapevi
Önsoy, R. (1988). Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Sanayii
Clark, E. (1974). Osmanlı Sanayi Devrimi. Belgelerle ve Sanayileşme Politikası. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür
Türk Tarihi Dergisi, 82-83-84: 16-24. Yayınları, Ankara.

Çetin, S. (2012). Bir Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Örmecioğlu, T. (2010). Technology, engineering
Tarımsal İşletmesi: Antalya Sıcak İklim Nebatatları and modernity in Turkey: The case of road bridges
Teksir ve Islah İstasyonu. Mimarlık, 367(1): 61-66. between 1850 and 1960. Doktora Tezi Tezi, Orta
Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, 324 p.
Çimrin, H. (2007). Bir Zamanlar Antalya, Tarih,
Gözlem ve Anılar, Cilt 2, Antalya Ticaret ve Sanayi Örs Çorapçıoğlu, G. (2015). Doğu Karadeniz
Odası Kültür Yayını, Antalya, 640s. örneğinde su değirmenlerinin belgelenmesi ve
korunması konusunda bir yöntem araştırması. Doktora
Çimrin, H. (2017). Antalya’da Zamanla Kaybolan Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi. Fen
Meslekler Esnaflar. Antalya Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 281 s.
Kültür Yayını, Antalya, 304s.

413

Urban Amnesia and Industrial ... Emine BARBAROS AKAY - Hilal Tuğba ÖRMECİOĞLU - Aslı ER AKAN

Pamuk, Ş. (1994). Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık
ve Büyüme, 1820-1913, İstanbul, 272s.

Pamuk, Ş. (1997). 100 Soruda Osmanlı-Türkiye
İktisadi Tarihi, 1500-1914, İstanbul, 314s.

Roth, L.M. (2000). Mimarlığın Öyküsü. Kabalcı
Yayınevi, İstanbul, 720s.

Şengül, H.T. (2001). Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset.
Demokrasi Kitaplığı, İstanbul, 358s.

Tekeli, İ. (1971). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu›nda
Mekan Organizasyonunun Evrimi Ve Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti’nin Bölgesel Politikalarının Kökenleri.
Bölge Planlama Üzerine, İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi,
İstanbul, ss. 91-119.

Tekeli, İ. ve İlkin, S. (2004). Cumhuriyetin Harcı:
Modernitenin Altyapısı Oluşurken. İstanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 503s.

Tekeli, İ. (2009). Modernizm, Modernite ve
Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt
Yayınları, İstanbul, 238 s.

Toprak, Z. (1985). Osmanlı Devleti ve Sanayileşme
Sorunu, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye
Ansiklopedisi. Cilt: 5, İstanbul, ss. 1340-1344.

Türkdoğan, O. (1981). Sanayi Sosyolojisi-
Türkiye’nin Sanayileşmesi (Dün-BugünYarın). Töre
Devlet Yayınevi, Ankara, 763 s.

Tüzün, G. (1998). 1950-1960 Döneminde
Sanayileşme. In: Baydar, O. (Ed), 75 Yılda Çarklardan
Chip’lere. Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul, ss. 147-167.

Zeybekoğlu, S. (2009). Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde
Sanayi Komplekslerinin Mekansal Analizi: Nazill,
Kayseri, Bursa, Eskişehir. Cengizkan, A. (Ed.),
Fabrikada Barınmak: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde
Türkiye’de İşçi Konutları. Arkadaş Yayınevi, Ankara,
ss. 215-255.

414

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE STRUCTURES
AND URBAN MEMORY: THE HATAY
CASE

Yücel DİNÇ1 - Çetin Furkan USUN2

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between the industrial heritage structures of the city
of Hatay and urban memory was examined. The purpose of this study is to present the
spatial distribution of the industrial structures in Hatay that have heritage characteristics
and to determine local people’s awareness level regarding these structures. Within
the scope of the field research, a 22-item questionnaire form was developed in order
to determine the relationships between industrial heritage and urban memory. The
questionnaire was administered to 236 participants. Questionnaire data were analyzed
using the IBM SPSS_26 software. Also analyze the answers questions, the MAXQDA
2020 program was used. According to the answers given to the questionnaire questions,
more than half of the participants (54.8%) associated the concept of industrial heritage
with past and spiritual values. However, despite this, the concept of industrial heritage
was not fully understood by the participants and the conservation awareness regarding
the industrial heritage structures was not yet fully developed. The fact that more than half
of the participants (56.8%) did not have information about the structures that are under
protection in Antakya and 64% of them had never visited any structures with industrial
heritage value in Antakya indicates that the conservation awareness in the local population
has not fully developed.

1   Research Asist., Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Geography.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0492-4724

2   Research Asist., Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Geography.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-5205-8752

415

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Introduction

As production spaces, cities faced a rapid population accumulation process
when they were developing. These production sites attracted a significant population
with the various opportunities they had (employment, housing, etc.) when they were
continuing their activities. When the driving factors of the countryside were added into
the mix, the production-oriented development of the cities was inevitable. After the
Industrial Revolution, increasing numbers of industrial structures and industrial areas
were actively used for many years (Koyuncu Peker, 2019). However, after serving for
many years, some of these structures lost their former efficiency over time, remained
technologically inadequate, polluted the city, and damaged the image of the city. In recent
years, industrial facilities operating in city centers were closed one by one and lost their
functions due to the changes and transformations in production because of the effects
of globalization. Thus, industrial facilities began to be moved from city centers to city
peripheries. However, during these relocations, some problems were encountered, such
as the deliberate destruction of some of the industrial structures in the city centers or the
total demolition of the structures (Köksal and Ahunbay, 2006: 132).

Industrial structures that lost their function are of great importance as they
witnessed the changes the city went through over time and have an undeniable place in the
urban memory. For this reason, the interest of various non-governmental organizations,
stakeholders, and other segments of society in structures that lost their functions increased
in recent years. This interest and curiosity brought along many scientific studies on the
subject (Harris, 1989; Edwars and Coit, 1996; Kerstetter et al. 1998; Köksal and Ahunbay,
2006; Del Pozo and Gonzalez, 2012; Cossons, 2012; Berger and High, 2019).

With the abandonment of industrial structures in city centers for various reasons,
the concept of “brownfield” was introduced (Eisen, 1999; Alker et al. 2000; De Sousa,
2005). The concept was first used to describe the regeneration process of the existing
steel mills in the United States in the 1970s. Used in reference to the “management of
old industrial properties” in a conference at the beginning of the 1990s, the concept
started to be used frequently in the public and private sectors (Karadağ and İncedere,
2017: 14). When abandoned industrial zones are located in the centers of today’s cities,
a contradictory situation emerged, i.e., the “abandoned areas in the most popular areas
of the cities”. After all, urban rift areas, which look like ruins, became one of the areas
that are frequently seen in the highly popular centers of today’s cities. Therefore, the rent
of the industrial structures that lost their function occupying a very valuable area on the
urban space increased even more. Thus, the conservation and functionalization of these
structures became inevitable.

The concept of “industrial heritage” also came to the fore with the conservation
of industrial structures that lost their function gaining an international dimension (Harris,
1989; Hospers, 2002). Then, the view that the industrial monuments and sites making
up this heritage are components of the international heritage began to be adopted (Saner,
2012: 53). However, what values would be included in industrial heritage and how and

416

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

by what criteria these areas would be defined remained a polemic for a long time. The
definition in the “Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage” developed by the
International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) is the
most accepted one among these (Karadağ and İncedere, 2017: 17). According to TICCIH3,
“Industrial heritage consists of the remains of industrial culture which are of historical,
technological, social, architectural or scientific value. These remains consist of structures
and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and
refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and used,
transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to
industry such as housing, religious worship or education.”

The comprehensive definition of industrial heritage shows that the structures
that have industrial heritage characteristics have a wide range. For this reason, there
are some initiatives to determine whether the structures are industrial heritage or not,
to conserve the structures, and to form cultural routes through the structures. These
initiatives are carried out by major institutions and organizations. Among these, TICCIH
is the first international organization formed with a focus on industrial heritage (Saner,
2012: 55). In addition, organizations and platforms like the International Working Party
for Documentation and Conservation of Structures, Sites and Neighborhoods of The
Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO)4, European Route of Industrial Heritage (ERIH)5,
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)6, the European Federation
of Organizations of Industrial and Technical Heritage (E-FAITH)7, and United Nations
Educational, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)8 also carry out important
international works on industrial heritage (Usun and Dinç, 2020: 154).

Any initiative to conserve industrial heritage structures is undoubtedly brought to
the attention of all humanity, who should have an awareness for the conservation of these
structures. As a matter of fact, industrial structures that lost their function are concrete
proofs that witnessed a period, had experiences, and left traces in the city and its citizens
(Aydın and Aksoy, 2012). With reference to the idea that a place is engraved in memories
in order to preserve and maintain its uniqueness, it should be underlined that industrial
heritage is an important memory element (Karadağ and İncedere, 2020: 66). Therefore,
it would not be wrong to say that there is a very close relationship between urban space,
industrial heritage, and urban memory that feeds each other. According to the Turkish
Language Association, memory refers to the power to keep the experiences, the subjects
learned, and their relationship with the past consciously in the mind (TDK, 2011: 304). The
expression of the power to consciously keep in mind in the definition is quite meaningful
for studies on “memory” (Ünlü, 2017: 77). As a matter of fact, it is an important indicator
to what extent the experiences, past, belonging, and roots are remembered/forgotten or how
they are remembered in the interaction between human, space and culture.

3   https://ticcih.org/about/ (Date of access: 03.01.2021)
4   http://www.docomomo-tr.org (Date of access: 07.01.2021)
5   https://www.erih.net (Date of access: 08.01.2021)
6   http://www.icomos.org.tr( Date of access: 08.01.2021)
7   http://www.e-faith.org (Date of access: 07.01.2021)
8   https://www.unesco.org.tr (Date of access: 07.01.2021)

417

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

In city centers, industrial structures, which continue to exist for an average human
life or even longer and which have historical importance, gain an important place in
the memory of the city residents since they are concrete indicators of the space. This
is because the residents of the city had direct or indirect contact with these industrial
structures in certain periods. This contact is made because the locals sometimes worked
in various industrial structures in the cities and they sometimes used the streets the
structures are located in their daily activities. Indeed, since the historical industrial
structures are the witnesses of economic, social, and cultural experiences of the space,
it is of great importance to conserve these structures or to re-evaluate them within the
scope of conservation and use. Undoubtedly, for a sustainable life, the most important
responsibility falls on people (local people) in protecting the historical past and heritage
structures.

Figure 1. Location map of study area
418

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

In this study, the relationship between the industrial heritage structures of the city
of Hatay and urban memory was examined. Hatay is a city located to the southeast of
Turkey on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 1). Within the boundaries
of the city, it is possible to see many different structure ruins from the Paleolithic period
settlement ruins to ancient period artifacts, from Roman aqueducts to Seljuk and Ottoman
architecture. This indicates that Hatay hosted different civilizations for centuries. The
purpose of this study is to present the spatial distribution of the industrial structures in
Hatay that have heritage characteristics and to determine local people’s awareness level
regarding these structures. In line with this study purpose, the answers to the following
questions were sought: (1) What is the spatial distribution of the industrial heritage
structures in Hatay? (2) Is there a relationship between industrial heritage structures and
urban memory? If so, what is the strength and direction of this relationship? (3) What is
the local people’s awareness level regarding the industrial heritage structures?

Material and Method

In this study, first, a comprehensive literature review on the study field and subject
was conducted, and the resources found were subjected to document analysis. The list
of structures with industrial heritage value in Hatay was provided from the General
Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums. From the Conservation Application
and Supervision Branch (KUDEB) of the Hatay Metropolitan Municipality, the zoning
plans for conservation and inventories related to the structures put under protection were
obtained. In addition, the registration vouchers of the structures that have industrial heritage
characteristics were examined using the Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories books.
In determining which structures will be assessed within the scope of industrial heritage and
will be included in this study, TICCIH’s comprehensive definition of industrial heritage
was taken into consideration. In their study on the soap shops in Antakya (Hatay’s central
district), Usun and Dinç (2020) stated the number of industrial and commercial structures
in Hatay as 45 according to the data they obtained from KUDEB. However, in the present
study on industrial structures in the city of Hatay, it was noticed that the total number of
industrial structures taken under protection was much higher after the observations made
in field and the re-review of all KUDEB data and culture inventories. As a matter of fact,
it was determined that there are a total of 79 industrial and commercial heritage structures
in the city of Hatay and 43 of these structures are located in Antakya.

After determining the structures to be used in this study, the structures in question
were classified according to their functional characteristics. Then, a spatial distribution map
was created using the ArcGIS 10.3 software in order to reveal the distribution of the structures
throughout the city of Hatay. Each building group was shown with a different symbol on the
map. Later, local people’s awareness level regarding the historical industrial structures was
determined. For this, it was deemed appropriate to conduct field research in Antakya, the
central district of Hatay, with the belief that conducting field research in all districts in Hatay
would not be appropriate for the study purpose and would cause loss of time. As a matter of

419

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

fact, the reason why Antakya was preferred in terms of field research was that 43 of the 79
industrial heritage structures in the city of Hatay province were located in Antakya.

Within the scope of the field research, a 22-item questionnaire form was
developed in order to determine the relationships between industrial heritage and urban
memory, and these questionnaires were administered to people of different age groups
who lived in Antakya for a short or long period. The questionnaire was administered
to 236 participants. The answers given to the questions in the questionnaire form
were assessed under three groups. In the first group, the demographic characteristics
of the sample group were explained. In the second group, participants’ awareness
levels regarding the concept of industrial heritage were measured, whereas, in the last
group, their awareness levels regarding the industrial heritage structures in Antakya
were assessed. In this way, the participant’s awareness regarding the concept and their
awareness regarding the concrete examples of industrial structures were assessed
separately.

Questionnaire data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS_26 software. “Multiple
Response” analysis was performed for the questions that could have multiple answers.
Tables and graphs were formed and interpreted for the answers given to the questions.
Correlation analyzes were made based on certain questions in the questionnaire form.
In order to see what kind of distribution the data showed, normality test was performed.
The data did not show a normal distribution. For this reason, it was deemed necessary
to perform Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis.

Two open-ended questions were asked in the questionnaire administered to the
participants. One of these questions was, “For what purpose did you go to any building
with industrial heritage value?”, and the other one was “What are the three words that
come to your mind when you hear the word industrial heritage?”. In order to analyze
the answers to these questions, the MAXQDA 2020 program was used, and word clouds
were formed. Accordingly, the most frequently repeated words were presented in larger
font size, while the font size of the infrequently repeated words was relatively lower.

Industrial heritage structures of the province of Hatay

Hosting the traces of Paleolithic settlements, Hatay is located in a place that
has connected Anatolia and Mesopotamia from ancient times until today. The region
was on the historical Silk Road route and connected the King’s Road and the Spice
Road. Furthermore, the historical Hejaz Road passed through the region. These all
clearly reveal the strategic importance of Hatay. In addition, factors such as suitable
climate, the presence of fertile agricultural lands, and being on trade routes made
Hatay a place that has always attracted settlement (Üçeçam Karagel, 2018). Due
to these features, Hatay has been a place where the cultures of eastern and western
civilizations have been blended from the past to the present. As a result of the
archaeological excavations carried out in Hatay, more than 30,000 objects belonging
to the Hellenistic, Byzantine, Roman, and Ottoman periods were unearthed (Ulusoy

420

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

et al., 2015: 10). Undoubtedly, this shows that different civilizations live in Hatay and
culturally interacted with each other.

In Hatay, different institutions have undertaken the task of registering the structures
that are of historical importance and therefore put under protection. The High Council of
Real Estate Antiquities and Monuments carried out the identification and registration of
the structures that need to be conserved after 1975, whereas the Cultural and Natural
Heritage Conservation Board carried out this task after 1985, and KUDEB since 2010
(Sargın and Dinç, 2017: 490). As a result of these works, hundreds of structures of cultural
heritage, from historical mosques to inns and baths, from tombs and fountains to covered
bazaars and traditional houses, were put under protection. Besides these structures,
industrial structures such as soap shops, stone workshops, bridges, watermills, irrigation
canals, and shops, which reflect various the engineering and architectural understanding
of different periods and have survived until today, were also put under protection as they
are heritage.

In the present study, a total of 79 structures that have the characteristics of industrial
heritage in Hatay were identified based on TICCIH’s definition of industrial heritage, and these
structures were classified according to their functions. It is noteworthy that shops and shop
groups constitute the majority with 27 structures among these structures. They are followed by
17 structures like watermills, cisterns, aqueducts, dams, and irrigation canals. Apart from these
structures, industrial structures of historical importance such as bridges (11), soap shops (8),
transportation-related structures (5), workshops (3), coffeehouses (3), warehouse (1), power
plant (1), industrial site (1), lodging (1) and slaughterhouse (1) are found in Hatay (Graph 1.).

When the periods the industrial heritage structures in Hatay were built were examined,
it is noteworthy that the structures such as aqueducts, mills, cisterns, irrigation canals, dams, as

Graph 1. Distribution of Industrial heritage structures in Hatay according to their functions.

421

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

well as stone workshops date back to ancient times. All the other industrial heritage structures
were built after the industrial revolution. Among these structures, soap shops were built in
the 19th century, and slaughterhouses, power plant, and factory lodging were built in the 20th
century. Railway stations were put into service at the beginning of the 19th century and the
end of the 20th century. Although there is no exact information about when the historical
bridges and shops were built, it is estimated that these structures were built in the 19th and 20th
centuries9.

In terms of the distribution of these industrial heritage structures in Hatay by
districts, 43 of them are in Antakya. Antakya is followed by Yayladağı with eight structures
and İskenderun with seven structures. There are four structures in Altınözü and Samandağ
districts, three in Defne, two in Reyhanlı, Hassa and Erzin districts, and one in Dörtyol, Payas
and Kırıkhan districts. No industrial structures of historical importance were encountered
in the districts Kumlu, Belen, and Arsuz. Thus, it is noteworthy that these structures do not
show a balanced distribution throughout the city of Hatay.

Shops and shop groups

Put under protection in Hatay, the shops are concentrated in Antakya, the central
district of the city, especially in the historical commercial center. This commercial area
dates back to the period of Seleucus I Nicator (300 BC-281 BC), the founder of the city
of Antakya (Antioch). Founded between the Habib-i Neccar (Silpius) Mountain and the
Asi (Orontes) River in the area that is today called Old Antakya, the city used to have an
area called “Agora” that constituted the most important spatial element and commercial
center of the city (Downey, 1961: 69; Üçeçam Karagel and Karagel, 2014: 172; Dinç,
2017: 915).

The first marketplace of Antakya was built in the Arabic (Soukh) style around
Agora (today’s Uzun Çarşı [Long Bazaar] and its surroundings). In line with the
style, new colonnaded streets were built. During the Arab rule, Antakya preserved its
commercial importance and from then on, it turned into an Islamic city. In the Islamic
period, the commercial center continued to develop, and streets and bazaars consisting of
shops selling certain goods emerged (Turgut, 1986). As commercial elements of Ottoman
cities, shops, bazaars, covered bazaars, and inns were widely seen in Antakya, which was
on the trade routes connecting Anatolia to the Middle East. Therefore, many commercial
spaces were established in Antakya to serve this purpose (Gündüz and Gülcü, 2009: 296).
Commercial facilities such as workshops, shops, inns, and soap shops accounted for one-
fourth of the total area of t​​he city (Ömeroğlu, 2006: 51).

Although commercial activities in the historical commercial center of Antakya date
back to ancient times, the historical shops that were able to survive until today were built in
the late Ottoman period (19th and 20th century). According to the zoning plans for conservation
taken from KUDEB, the shops that were put under protection are concentrated in the urban
sites and grade 3 archeological site area between Kemalpaşa, Meydan, and Kurtuluş Avenues.

9   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories

422

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Of the shops and shop groups in Hatay,
26 are located in the historic commercial center
(Uzun Çarşı [Long Bazaar]) of Antakya, and
one is located in the İrtah Neighborhood of
Reyhanlı District (Photo 1). Some of the shops
in Antakya bazaar were put under protection
by the High Council of Real Estate Antiquities
and Monuments in 1982, and the rest by the
Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation
Board in 2009. Some shops are located on a
single parcel, while others were built on more
than one parcel next to each other. There are
different tradesmen in these shops today, from
shoemakers to spice sellers, from goldsmiths
to künefe (a sweet) shops.

Water-related structures (mills,
cisterns, aqueducts, etc.)

One of the oldest settlements within the Photo 1. Historical shops in Antakya Long Bazaar
boundaries of the city of Hatay is Samandağ
(Seleucia Pierria) founded by Seleucus I Nicator in 300 BC (Turgut, 1986: 28). Since it
was a port city, Seleucia Pierria was located in an area open to attacks coming from the
sea. For this reason, it was deemed necessary to found a new capital city further inland.
This was one of the main factors in choosing a place for the establishment of Antakya
(Bouchier, 1921: 66; Downey, 1961: 56-57; Demir, 1996: 23). In addition to being a
safe place, Antakya was rich in water resources. This also played an important role in
choosing this place as a settlement location (Korkmaz, 2007: 78; Dinç, 2015: 45). The
city was founded by Seleucus I Nicator, and the site between the Asi (Orontes) River
and the Habib-i Neccar (Silpius) Mountain was chosen as the place of establishment.
After the foundation of Seleucia Pierria and Antakya cities, important initiatives on the
management of water resources, irrigation systems, and water engineering took place in
the Roman period (Dinç and Üçeçam Karagel, 2017: 580).

Structures such as tunnels, aqueducts, canals, and levees, which were built in
the Roman period and survived until today, attract attention as examples of the Roman
architecture in Hatay. In Hatay, The Titus (Vespasian) Tunnel, built in the Roman period,
is one of the first examples of Roman water engineering (Photo 2a). The tunnel was built
as a dam project in order to prevent the dangerous situation created by the water flowing
into the lower city and the inner port and to meet the water needs of the people during the
dry season of summer. The construction of the tunnel started during the Roman emperor
Vespasian’s period (69-79 A.D.) and continued during the emperor Titus’s period (79-81
A.D.). The tunnel construction that started during the Vespasian period was completed
after two centuries for various reasons (Pamir, 2001; Göğebakan and Saban, 2018: 340).

423

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Defne (Daphne), located on a relatively higher area and approximately 8 km south
of Antakya, was founded shortly after the ancient city of Seleucia Pierria. Defne was
important in terms of its villas, gardens, baths, and especially water resources. Due to
the richness of Defne in terms of water resources, water was transported from here to
Antakya through aqueducts in certain periods. These aqueducts were built during the
Roman emperor Trajan’s period (98-117 A.D.) (Downey, 1961: 19). The aqueducts
between Antakya and Defne are also called Trajan aqueducts and are among the structures
that are very important in terms of industrial heritage today (Photo 2b).

Antakya was a city where floods were frequently experienced from the time
it was founded until the Roman period (Bouchier, 1921: 4; Downey, 1961: 653). The
Hacıkürüş (Pharmenius) Creek, one of the streams flowing from the Habib-i Neccar
(Silpius) Mountain towards the plain, caused great damages in the city. The first
important attempts to prevent the floods took place during the Roman period. The
floods and destructions caused by the Hacıkürüş Creek mostly during the winter months
required the construction of a levee. For this reason, a levee named Bab el-Hadid (Iron
Gate) was built near the current Saint Pierre Church in the Roman emperor Justinian’s
period (527-AD.565) near the source of the Hacıkürüş Creek (Photo 2c). This levee
had sufficient volume to collect most of the waters of the creek, which surged in winter
(Downey, 1961: 653; Demir, 1996: 53).

In ancient times, another main problem of Antakya was related to sewage. The
wastewater was discharged to the Asi (Orontes) River with the sewage system built on the

Photo 2. Water-related Industrial heritage structures in Hatay
Photo 2a:Vespasianus (Titus) Tunnel, 2b: Aqueducts, 2c:Iron Gate (Bab el Hadid), 2d:Irrigation Canal
(Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories), 2e:Mill, 2f:Wall of water

slopes of the Habib-i Neccar (Silpius) Mountain (Demir, 1996: 28). Located just south of
Kurtuluş Street, within the borders of Kışlasaray Neighborhood of Antakya, the drainage
canal is an important initiative in water engineering. 3.5 meters wide and 4 meters high,
the underground drainage canal, which was discovered at the intersection of Kışlasaray

424

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

and Uğur Mumcu Streets during the infrastructure works of the Antakya Municipality,
was built to eliminate the sewage problems in the city (Photo 2d). Used as a sanitation
today, this water canal was put under protection on 14.05.201010.

Watermills are of great importance among the industrial heritage buildings in
Hatay. Although many watermills were built in Hatay from past to present, most of these
mills went out of existence. As a matter of fact, the fact that watermills were behind
today’s technological developments and could not compete with electricity-powered mills
that were built closer to residential areas and had easier access has caused watermills to
lose their former importance (Özmen, 1998: 464).

Today, there are historical watermills in Reyhanlı, Altınözü and Antakya districts of
Hatay. The mill located in Yenişehir Neighborhood of Reyhanlı District is in ruins today.
This mill was put under protection on 31.03.1989. There are historical river levees and
watermills in the 18th century in Zikir area of Kansu neighborhood in Altınözü district,
and Yenihisar District (Photo 2e/2f). Apart from these mills, the cisterns are also among
the water-related industrial heritage structures of Hatay. The cisterns built in the Roman
period in the Şenköy neighborhood of Yayladağı district were put under protection on
23.02.200611. The mills (water cabinets, nauras), which were built along the Asi River
(Orontes) in Antakya and were once the basic elements of the city, disappeared completely
with a few exceptions (Photo 3a/3b).

Photo 3. Views from the water cabinets (naura) on the shore of the Asi River
Source: Demir, 1996; Özbay, 2012

Bridges

There are a total of 11 historically important bridges in Hatay, which are under
protection. The district with the highest number of these bridges is Yayladağı (3). Samandağ
and Hassa districts follow Yayladağı with two bridges each. Apart from these districts,
Antakya, Dörtyol, Kırıkhan and Altınözü districts have one bridge in each. The oldest of
the historical bridges in Hatay is the Kırık Bridge, located in Yeşilköy neighborhood of

10   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories
11   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories

425

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Photo 4. Kuseyri Bridge located in Altınözü district
Source: Kansu-Çetenli

Dörtyol district and built in the Roman period. The other bridges were built in the last
few centuries of the Ottoman period. Located in Demirköprü neighborhood of Antakya,
Demirköprü is one of the first bridges that was put under protection. The bridge was
put under protection in 1979. The Danaahmetli Bridge, located in the Danaahmetli
neighborhood of Kırıkhan district, was put under protection in 1990 and the other bridges
in the 2000s12.

The Kuseyri Bridge is located between Kansu and Çetenli villages of Altınözü
district. The historic Kuseyri bridge lost its old function after serving for many years
and a new bridge was built in 2004 right next to the bridge. This new bridge provides
transportation between Kansu-Çetenli-Alakent-Toprakhisar-Demirköprü (Photo
4). In Hassa district, the Hasanağa Bridge is located on the Habur Stream of Ardıçlı
neighborhood, and the Taş Bridge is located on the Söğüt Creek in Söğüt neighborhood.
In Samandağ district, two bridges were built on Büyükkaraçay Creek. One of these
bridges is Batıayaz and the other is Seldiren. The Ağrımaz and Kureyşi bridges in the
Yayladağı district were built by the French during the French invasion of Hatay in 1918.
These bridges are located on the Ağrımaz and Kureyşi creeks. Another bridge built on the
Kureyşi Creek is the Kasımbey Bridge13.

Soap shops: The soap production activities showed significant improvement in
the last few centuries in Hatay, one of the important centers of traditional soap production

12   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories
13   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories

426

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

in Turkey (Temiz, 2008). The production activities that were carried out in houses before
started to be carried out in facilities called soap shops since the second half of the 19th
century (Camuz et al, 2015: 14). These facilities, where production was carried out for
about a century, stopped their production for various reasons towards the end of the 20th
century, lost their function, and remained idle. There are a total of eight soap shops within
the boundaries of Hatay (Photo 5). All of these soap shops are located in the historical
texture of Antakya, and very close to each other.

Soap shops in Antakya are soap house on Bedesten Street, Ömer Şenek Soap house,

Photo 5. Views from the soap factories in the research area (Usun and Dinç, 2020)
(Photo 5a:Bedesten Street Soap Factory, 5b:Ömer Şenek Soap Factory, 5c:Çelenkçioğlu Soap Factory,
5d:Kuseyri Soap Factory (Camuz, 2016), 5e:Hasan Ökten Soap Factory, 5f:Aselcioğlu Soap Factory,
5g:Şeyhoğlu Soap Factory, 5h:Selahattin Ökten Soap Factory)

Çelenkçioğlu Soap house, Kuseyri Soap house, Hasan Ökten Soap house, Aselcioğlu
Soap house, Şeyhoğlu Soap house and Selahattin Ökten Soap house (Photo 5a-h). All
of these soap shops were put under protection in 1985 and afterward. Four of the soap
shops were functionalized, while the other four have not yet been functionalized (Usun
and Dinç, 2020: 7). Among the functionalized soap shops, the Selahattin Ökten soap
house is the only soap house that continues its soap production and sales today. Şeyhoğlu
soap house serves as a hotel today. Served as an inn until the last century of the Ottoman
period, the Çelenkçioğlu soap house today had shops selling glassware and clothing. In
the soap house, which is located on Bedesten Street and used as a covered bazaar in the
Ottoman period, a cofeehouse operates today.

Transportation-related structures
There are five transportation-related industrial heritage structures in Hatay. All
of these are made up of historical railway stations and lodgings. The station building
and lodging located in the Gözeneler area of Erzin district were built in the 20th century
and were put under protection on 22.02.2007. Located on block 528 and parcel 3 in
Payas İsdemir, the old station building is one of the stations built by the Germans during

427

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

the Ottoman period and bears the effects of
German architecture. Put under protection
on 17.12.2007, the structure is currently
idle14.

Located on parcel 219 in the Çay
neighborhood of İskenderun, the railway
station and administration building were built
in the 20th century (Photo 6). The structure,
which is currently idle, was put under
protection on 26.05.2008. Another building Photo 6. Historical railway station and
consisting of a two-story lodging in the garden administration building in Iskenderun
in the northwest of the station administration
building and an adjacent servant residence continues to be used as lodging today. The structure
was put under protection on 17.07.1987. Another station administration building that was put
under protection on the same date in İskenderun, is also located in the Çay neighborhood.

Workshops (stone cutting workshops)

In Hatay, the workshops used as stone cutting workshops, especially in ancient
times, are located in Defne, Samandağ, and Yayladağı districts. The workshop located
on parcel 1 in Karşıyaka neighborhood in Defne district was put under protection as
an industrial and commercial building in 2018. Another workshop located on parcel
674 in Çöğurlu neighborhood of Samandağ district was put under protection in 2017.
Another stone workshop registered in the same year is located on parcel 10 in Şenköy
neighborhood in Yayladağı district15 These stone cutting workshops are important
in terms of showing that the production activities in Hatay were carried out even in
ancient times.

Coffeehouses

There are coffeehouses among the industrial and commercial buildings that are put
under protection because of their historical importance in Hatay. One of these cafes is on
Kurtuluş Street in Şeyh Ali neighborhood in Antakya. The structure was built during the
French period. Another Kıraathane is located on parcel 1230 in Kuyulu neighborhood.
The structure was built in the 1930s. The historical coffeehouse in Şenköy neighborhood
in Yayladağı district is located within the urban site. This coffee house was put under
protection in 201316.

Warehouse

14   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories
15   General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, ANKARA.
16   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories

428

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

There is an off-license warehouse
in Antakya at the intersection of Kurtuluş
Avenue and Turan Street in the Kocaabdi
neighborhood (Photo 7). This warehouse
was put under protection by the High
Council of Real Estate Antiquities and
Monuments on 11.06.198217.

Power Plant (Turkish
Electricity Administration
[TEK] Building)

The historical power plant building Photo 7. A historical warehouse in Antakya
located on the Dr. Sadık Ahmet Street in
the Pınarbaşı neighborhood in İskenderun
was built in the 20th century (Photo 8).
Used as an electricity generation facility
for a period, the structure lost its function
today. The historic power plant was put
under protection on 24.03.2008. On the
east and west walls of the building, there
are reinforced concrete protrusions in
order to carry the electrical installation
suitable for this function, possibly added
later. In the southwestern part of the
building, there is a flat roof unit where
machines for electricity generation are
placed18.

Industry Site

In cases where the structures Photo 8. Historical power plant located in
under protection are not a single Iskenderun Pınarbaşı Neighborhood
industrial building, but all of the
buildings and facilities gathered in a specific area, these areas can be defined as
a whole under the name of “industrial site” (Saner, 2012: 53). A structure group
that has the characteristics of an industrial site in İskenderun is an example of
this concept. On the parcel 1936 in the Çay neighborhood of İskenderun district,
there are maintenance workshops belonging to the Turkish State Railways, two
annex buildings, and a warehouse. This structure group was put under protection
on 11.12.200119.

17   General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, ANKARA.
18   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories
19   General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, ANKARA.

429

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Factory Lodging

This historical building was built as the lodging of Mc Andrews and Forbes
licorice company, founded in 1902, headquartered in America and operated in İskenderun
in the same year. The factory housing continued this function until 1997. Although the
licorice factory was demolished and a shopping center (Forbes Mall was built in its place,
the lodging of the factory survived to this day20. Put under protection on 08.06.1988, the
lodging is undergoing restoration nowadays. The structure will be reopened as a hotel
when the restoration process is completed.

Slaughterhouse

Located on parcel 1952 in the Çay neighborhood of İskenderun, the historical
slaughterhouse was built in the 20th century (Photo 9). After the building lost its function, it
was restored in 2002 and started to be used as a multi-purpose meeting hall21. İskenderun’s
current slaughterhouse serves in the Karaağaç neighborhood.

Photo 9. The historical slaughterhouse in Iskenderun’s Çay District

Field research (assessment of the questionnaire data)

Demographic characteristics of the participants

In the study, a questionnaire was administered to the study group in order to reveal the
relationship between the industrial heritage structures in Antakya and urban memory. The
first question of the questionnaire was about the age groups. According to the distribution
of the respondents by age, the majority of the respondents were in the 26-35 and 36-45 age
groups. While there were 76 people (32.2%) in the 26-35 age group, there were 67 people
(28.4%) in the 36-45 age group. These age groups were followed by 54 people (22.9%)
aged 18-25 years. 45.3% of the respondents were female and 54.7% were male (Table 1).

20   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories
21   Hatay Governorship Cultural Inventories

430

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Gender n (%) Education status n (%)
Female 107
129 45.3 Elementary school 31 13.1
Male 236
Total 54.7 High school 41 17.4
Age groups n
18-25 54 100 University 137 58.1
26-35 76
36-45 67 (%) Graduate education 27 11.4
46-55 20
56-65 12 22.9 Total 236 100
65+ 7
Total 236 32.2 Birthplace n (%)

28.4 Antakya 138 58.5

8.5 İskenderun 5 2.1

5.1 The other districts of Hatay 63 26.7

3.0 The other cities in Turkey 30 12.3

100 Total 236 100

While more than half of the participants (58.1%) were university graduates, 31
participants graduated from elementary school, 41 graduated from high school, and 27 of
them had graduate degrees. 58% of the participants (138 people) were born in Antakya,
whereas five were born in İskenderun. 63 participants (26.7%) were born in other districts
of Hatay. 30 of the participants (12.3%) were born in other cities of Turkey. According
to the distribution of the participants based on their residency in Antakya, more than half
of the respondents (58.9%) had been living in Antakya for more than 20 years. 78.3% of
them had been living in Antakya for more than 10 years.

An assessment of local people’s awareness regarding the industrial
heritage concept

In order to reveal how the people residing in Antakya perceived the concept of
industrial heritage, various questions were asked to the participants. The first one was,
“What do you think industrial heritage is?”. 71 people (30.1%) answered this question
with “remnants of the industrial culture”. The number of those who saw industrial
heritage as “movable and immovable items with historical value” was 66 (28%). The
number of those who accepted the industrial heritage as a “production heritage” was 26
(11%), and 49 (20.8%) of the respondents considered “all” of these concepts within the
industrial heritage. 21 (8,9%) of them had no idea about the concept of industrial heritage
(Graph 2a).

The question of “What does the concept of industrial heritage evoke in you?” was
asked to the participants. 268 responses were marked in this question that had multiple
responses. 36.9% of the participants marked “past (nostalgia)”, 17.9% “intangible
value”, 7.5% “tangible value”, 6.7% “future” and 4.9% “originality”. While 24.3%
marked “all”, 1.9% marked “none” (Graph 2b). In another question, 78.4% (175 people)

431

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Graph 2. Participants’ thoughts on the concept of industrial heritage

of the respondents evaluated the concept of industrial heritage as “concrete” and 20.3%
(48 people) as “abstract” (Graph 2c). Three participants did not answer this question.

Respondents were asked another question about whether they had heard of (had
information) the concept of industrial heritage before. 42 respondents (17.8%) stated, “I
heard it for the first time. I have no idea”, 101 (42.8%) stated, “I heard it before, but I do
not have an idea”, 75 (31.8%) stated, “I know about it”, and 18 (7.6%) stated, “I can give
examples from Antakya” (Graph 2d). The fact that the majority of the respındents did not
have an idea about the concept of industrial heritage shows that the awareness regarding
the concept is not at a sufficient level.

In the study, in order to assess the participants’ awareness regarding the concept
of industrial heritage, the question of “What are the three first words that come to your
mind when you hear industrial heritage?” was asked. While 79% of the participants
answered this question, 21% did not answer the question. The first word that came to
the minds of the respondents who answered the question was clearly “history” (98).
In addition, according to the findings, the participants associated the words “culture”
(37), “heritage” (25), “production” (17), and “industry” (16)” with industrial heritage
following “history” (Figure 2). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that most of the answers
given to this question were chosen from the words in the questionnaire22.

The study examined whether there was a relationship between the education levels of
the questionnaire respondents and their level of knowledge regarding the concept of industrial

22  Word cloud was prepared with the MAXQDA 2020 program. The most repeated words are shown in Figure 2 with larger fonts.

432

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 2. The words that come to the minds of the participants when it comes to industrial heritage

heritage, and a correlation analysis was conducted for this purpose. In order to determine
whether the data showed a normal distribution or not, normality analysis was performed first,
and the results revealed that the data were not normally distributed. Since the data were not
distributed normally, Spearman rank-order correlation analysis was performed. According to
this analysis, a positive and significant relationship was revealed between the education levels
and the level of knowledge regarding the concept of industrial heritage.23

Participants were also asked a question as to whether the structures with industrial
heritage value should be conserved. While 40 respondents (16.9%) stated that they were
“undecided” on this issue, 16 of them (6.8%) stated that it was not necessary to conserve
the structures. The fact that approximately one-fourth of the respondents did not consider
the conservation of the structures necessary or were indecisive indicates that the necessary
sensitivity is not shown towards the conservation of the structures.

To determine how the industrial heritage structures that had lost their function
were perceived by the participants, they were asked the question of “What does industrial
heritage structure that had lost its function mean?”. 53.4% ​o​f the participants (126
people) defined these structures as “not demolished but not serving any purpose”. This
finding indicates that more than half of the respondents understood the concept. However,
31.8% of them marked the responses of “completely demolished” and “to be used for
different purposes”. This shows that there is not a sufficient level of awareness in society
regarding the conservation of industrial structures. In another question, the participants
were asked the statement “I see industrial heritage structures as an important part of the
urban mosaic”. 93.1% of the respondents marked “Yes”, whereas 6.8% marked “No”.
Three respondents did not answer the question.

Participants were asked whether they had an idea about the concept of industrial
heritage based on the questions and the responses of the questions. This question
constitutes the last question of the questionnaire. 50.8% of the participants marked “I
fully understood the concept”, 42.4% marked “Some things came to life in my mind but I
cannot fully understand it”, and 6.8% marked “I still have no idea” (Graph 3). In the last

23   r =spearman .222, p = .001.

433

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Graph 3. Whether participiants had an idea about the concept of industrial heritage
based on the questions and the responses of the questions

question of the questionnaire, the fact that nearly half of those who filled out the
questionnaire stated that they fully understood the concept reveals the importance of this
questionnaire application.

Industrial heritage structures in Antakya and urban memory

In this study, in order to reveal the relationship between the industrial heritage
structures in Antakya and urban memory, the respondents were asked the question of “Do
you have any knowledge about any building under protection in Antakya?”. While134 of
the participants (56.8%) answered “No”, 97 (41.1%) answered “Yes”. Five people did
not provide any assessment. According to this finding, there is not a sufficient level of
awareness regarding the structures that were put under protection in Antakya.

The respondents were asked whether they had heard of the structures in Antakya
that are protected due to their industrial heritage value before. 41.5% of the participants
marked “I know that they are only historical structures”, 30.9% marked “I heard about
them for the first time”, 16.5% marked “I know about these structures”, 9.7% marked
“I only heard their names”, and 1.3% marked “I/one of my family member worked in
one of them before these structures lost their functions”. This question was associated
with participants’ duration of residency in Antakya. Since the data were not distributed
normally, Spearman rank-order correlation analysis was performed. According to the
analysis, a negative and insignificant relationship was found between the duration of
residency in Antakya and the awareness of the structures in Antakya protected due to
their industrial heritage.24

24   r = -.029, p = .657
spearman

434

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

In the study, the participants were asked the question of “Have you ever visited
an industrial heritage structure in Antakya?”. 36% of the participants marked “Yes”,
whereas 64% marked “No”. When asked for what purpose those who marked “Yes”
went to these structures, the most obvious answer was “trip” (47). This was followed by
“curiosity” (6), “historical information” (3), “tourism” (2), and “research” (2). All the
remaining answers were stated once by the participants (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The answers given by the participants to the question of what purpose those who go to any building
with industrial heritage value go

The participants were asked the question of which structures in Antakya could
be counted as having industrial heritage elements, with multiple answer responses. The
answers given were assessed using “Multiple Response” analysis. The respondents
selected a total of 511 responses. Two participants did not mark any responses. In this
question, the responses most marked by the participants were “workshop, shop and shop
groups” (17.6%) and water-related structures such as “mills, cisterns, and irrigation
canals” (17.6%). Soap shops constitute the third most marked response with 16.6%.
The fact that these three resposnes were marked more than the other responses and the
related structure examples are relatively high in Antakya shows that the local people
have an idea about the industrial structures identified with Antakya. The other responses
that were marked were bridges (11.5%), railway stations (5.5%), slaughterhouse (4.9%),
coffeehouses (4.1%), workshop (3.9%), and power plant (3.1%). Furthermore, the ratio of
those who marked “all” to the total marked responses is 14.1% (Graph 4).

Those who participated in the questionnaire were asked whether they agree
with the statement “The buildings that have the characteristics of industrial heritage
are protected in Hatay”. Everyone except one person answered this question. 10.6%
(25) of the participants marked “Strongly disagree”, 32.6% (77) marked “disagree”,
and 34.7% (82) marked “undecided”. The total ratio of those who marked these
three responses was 77.9%. The rest of the participants (20.1%) stated that industrial
heritage structures are preserved (Graph 5).

435

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

The historical Long Bazaar of Antakya has literally been the lifeblood of
commercial activities from ancient times to the present day. Shops, where economic
activities are carried out as a century-old tradition in this area, are of historical
importance and were put under protection. In order to understand whether the
participants were aware of this, they were asked the question of “Where do you
think the industrial heritage structures in Antakya gathered?”. A total of five
responses related to the question were formed, and the participants were told
that multiple answers could be given. The marked responses were assessed by
performing a “Multiple Response” analysis. A total of 272 responses were marked
in the question. 51.8% of the participants marked “Long Bazaar and its immediate
surroundings”, 24.3% marked “Saint Pierre Church and its surroundings”, 9.6%

Graph 4. The answers given by the participants to the question of which structures in Antakya could be
counted as having industrial heritage elements

Graph 5. Whether participants agree with the statement “The buildings that have the
characteristics of industrial heritage are protected in Hatay”
436

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

marked “Harbiye and its surroundings”, 7.7% “on the road to İskenderun”, and
6.6% marked “Antakya industrial site” (Graph 6). Accordingly, the fact that the
“Long Bazaar and its immediate surroundings” option constitutes about half of
the total marked responses shows that the importance of the Long Bazaar and its
surroundings is relatively understood in terms of industrial heritage. On the other
hand, the Antakya industrial site and the factories on the road to Iskenderun are
areas of production today but do not have any historical significance. The fact that
these two areas make up 14.3% of the selected responses shows that the concept of
industrial heritage was misunderstood by those who marked these responses.

The question of “What do you feel when you see a historical building in
Antakya?” Twas asked to the aprticipants. In this question with multiple responses,
a total of 376 responses were marked. 29.8% of the participants marked “as if in
my past”, 28.7% marked “curiosity”, 15.7% marked “longing”, 15.7% marked
“excitement”, 6.1% marked “surprise”, and 2.1% “I don’t feel anything”. Apart
from these, 1.9% marked the “other” response (Graph 7). These data revealed that the
questionnaire participants longed and wondered about past experiences.

The participants’ views on how to use these industrial heritage structures
in Antakya today were assessed. 234 people answered the question regarding
this, and two did not. 64.8% (153) of the participants who answered the question
marked “should be restored to their old functions”, 32.6% (77) marked “should be
privatized and built according to today’s conditions”, and 1.7% (4) marked “should
be demolished” (Graph 8). Accordingly, the fact that only four of the participants
marked the “should be demolished” response indicates that the local people show an
important sensitivity towards historical structures.

Graph 6. The answers given by the participants to the question of where do you think the industrial heritage
structures in Antakya gathered?

437

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Graph 7. The answers given by the participants to the question of what do you feel when you see a historical
building in Antakya

Graph 8. The participants’ views on how to use these industrial heritage structures in
Antakya today

Discussion and Conclusion

In today’s cities where the population is increasing rapidly and space is used more
intensively, the conservation and reuse of historical buildings bearing the deep traces of the
past are of great importance. Among these structures, industrial buildings, which operated as
production spaces in the past, are of particular importance. The historical industrial structures,
especially the ones in city centers, getting industrial heritage qualities, the conservation of
these structures, and the start of drawing attention to the concept of industrial heritage is
quite new in Turkey. For this reason, it is important that the industrial heritage structures
in the cities have more place in the minds of the city residents and awareness regarding
them is developed. In this regard, many empirical studies by different disciplines, including
geography, should be carried out in order to determine the industrial heritage structures and
to assess the awareness levels of the local people. Examining the relationships between the
industrial heritage structures in Hatay and their relationship with the urban memory, this study

438

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

arose from such a need.

In Hatay, which has hosted different civilizations throughout settlement history, it is
possible to see the industrial structure remains reflecting the production understanding of each
civilization. Structures such as aqueducts, canals, and dam sets displaying the achievement
of the Romans in water engineering, and bridges and soap shops revealing the architectural
understanding of the Ottomans are among the industrial heritage structures in Hatay. The present
study determined a total of 79 structures with industrial heritage within the boundaries of Hatay.
54% of the structures are located in Antakya, Hatay’s central district. In addition, although
structures that have survived from the ancient period to the present day are encountered, the
industrial heritage structures were mostly built during the 19th and 20th centuries. It has been
found to have been built within a century. Especially bridges, soap shops, transportation-related
structures, and factory lodgings constitute the main structures in question.

As well as identifying the industrial heritage structures and revealing their distribution,
it is also very important to emphasize the relationship of these structures with urban memory
and to create a certain awareness on this issue because the most important task in maintaining
the sustainability of these structures and building more livable cities falls to people. In order to
draw attention to such awareness, a questionnaire was administered to the sample group (236
people) from the residents of Antakya. The reason why Antakya was preferred for empirical
study among the other districts in Hatay was because more than half (54%) of the industrial
heritage structures are located in this district. The questionnaire form consisted of questions
measuring the knowledge level of the sample group on the concept of industrial heritage and
their awareness regarding the industrial heritage structures in Antakya.

According to the answers given to the questionnaire questions, more than half of
the participants (54.8%) associated the concept of industrial heritage with past and spiritual
values. However, despite this, the concept of industrial heritage was not fully understood by
the participants and the conservation awareness regarding the industrial heritage structures was
not yet fully developed. As a matter of fact, 60% of the participants stating that they did not
have any ideas about the concept of industrial heritage, and 23.5% stating that the protection
of the structures is not necessary or some participants having an indecisive attitude supports
this. Furthermore, 31.8% of the participants marking the “industrial heritage structures should
be totally demolished” and “should be used for different purposes” reveal that sufficient
sensitivity is not shown in terms of conservation and use.

When respondents were asked “What are the three first words that come to your
mind when you hear industrial heritage?”, most of the respondents wrote the words history
(98), culture (37), and heritage (25). Undoubtedly, although there were those who used these
concepts because they were knowledgeable about the subject, there were also those who used
the concepts after seeing them among the questionnaire questions. This reveals the importance
of the questionnaire in terms of ensuring that the concepts of history, culture, and heritage are
settled in the participants’ memories. In addition, in the last question of the questionnaire, the
participants were asked whether they understood the concept of industrial heritage based on
previous questions. The fact that 50.8% of the participants marked “I fully understood the

439

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

concept”, 42.4% marked “Some things came to life in my mind but I cannot fully understand
it” shows the effect of the questionnaire application on raising awareness on the subject.

In the study, correlation analysis was conducted to test whether there was a relationship
between the education level of the questionnaire participants and their knowledge level
regarding the concept of industrial heritage. Since the data did not show a normal distribution,
Spearman rank-order correlation analysis was performed. The analysis revealed a positive and
significant relationship between education level and industrial heritage concept awareness.
Furthermore, Spearman rank-order correlation analysis was performed to test whether there
was a relationship between the duration of residency in Antakya and the awareness regarding
the structures protected due to industrial heritage. The analysis revealed a negative and
insignificant relationship. This indicated that the participants’ knowledge about the industrial
structures under protection is not very much related to the duration of residency. In the last
part of the study, questions measuring participants’ awareness levels regarding the industrial
heritage structures in Antakya were asked. The fact that more than half of the participants
(56.8%) did not have information about the structures that are under protection in Antakya
and 64% of them had never visited any structures with industrial heritage value in Antakya
indicates that the conservation awareness in the local population has not fully developed.

Recommendations

Due to industrial heritage being a fairly new concept in Turkey, it is important to
measure the level of awareness regarding this concept. For this reason, many scientific studies
from various disciplines on the subject should be conducted, and the results should be analyzed
and shared with the public and stakeholders. Indeed, when the concept and awareness of
conservation were not fully comprehended in Turkey, hundreds of structures are known to
be deleted from the stage of history instead of restoring and reusing. The demolition of the
historical Roman Bridge, which has survived for centuries in Antakya, the central district of
Hatay, in the 1970s is just one of the aforementioned structures. If the awareness regarding
conservation of the industrial heritage structures does not develop, it will be inevitable to add
new ones to the structures that were about to be demolished. In order to prevent these risks,
first, it is necessary to identify all historical buildings, including industrial structures, to put
them under protection, and even to create cultural routes through the structures.

In Hatay, there have been remarkable developments in recent years in terms of protecting
historical and cultural wealth. Hatay being a member of the UNESCO creative cities network
and the EXPO being held in Hatay at the end of 2021 are among these main initiatives. However,
achieving a satisfactory level of success in all steps taken and to be taken regarding historical
and cultural values ​i​n Hatay, first of all, will be realized by the local people being aware of these
values a​​ nd showing sensitivity to the issues of protection and use. The results of the present study
show that the people of Hatay need to work harder and have conservation awareness in order for
the industrial heritage structures to have more place in the minds of the citizens. It should not be
forgotten that the transfer of historical structures and cultural accumulations to future generations
depends on the understanding, mercy, and conscience of the society.

440

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

References Downey, G. (1961). A history of Antioch in Syria
(from Seleucus to Arab Conquest), New Jersey
Alker, S. Joy, V. Roberts, P. & Smith, N. (2000). The Priceton University Press.
definiton of brownfield, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 43, (1), 49-69. Edwards, J.A. & Coit, J.C.L. (1996). Mines and
quarries: Industrial heritage tourism, Annals of
Aydın, D. & Aksoy, E. (2012). Nazilli Sümerbank Tourism Research, 2, (23), 341-363
Fabrikası’nın sosyal tesis binasının işlevsel dönüşümü
için analizler, Güney Mimarlık, TMMOB Mimarlar Eisen, J.B. (1999). Brownfiled policies for
Odası Adana Şubesi, 8, 40-46. sustainable cities, Duke Environmental Policy
Reform, 9, 187-229.
Berger, S. & High S. (2019). (De-)industrial heritage:
an introduction, Labour, 16, (1), 1-27 Göğebakan, Y. & Saban, D. (2018). Dünya miras
listesi ve Vespasianus -Titüs Tüneli- süreç üzerine
Bouchier, E.S. (1921). A short history of Antioch: bir değerlendirme, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar
300 B.C 1268 A.D., Forgotten Books Classic Reprint Dergisi, 55, (11), 333-344.
Series, London.
Gündüz, A. & Gülcü, E. (2009). XVI. yüzyılda
Camuz, D. İpekoğlu, B. & Böke, H. (2015). Antakya nahiyesi (1526-1584), Mustafa Kemal
Tarihi Osmanlı sabunhaneleri: Antakya Kuseyri Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12,
Sabunhanesi’nin mimari özellikleri ve koruma (6), 289-323, Hatay.
sorunları, Kargir Yapılarda Koruma ve Onarım
Semineri VII Bildiri Kitabı, 10-26. Harris, F. (1989). From the industrial revolution to
the heritage industry, Geographical Magazine, 1,
Cossons, D. (2012). Why preserve the indıstrial 38-42.
heritage?, Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: the TICCIH
guide to industrial heritage conservation, ed: James Hatay Valiliği (2014). Kültür envanterleri I-II
Douet (genişletilmiş baskı), Hatay.

Demir, A. (1996). Çağlar içinde Antakya, Akbank Hospers, G.J. (2002). Industrial heritage tourism
Kültür ve Sanat Kitapları, İstanbul. and regional restructing in the European Union,
European Planning Studies, 10, (3), 397-404.
De Sousa, C. (2005). Policy perfonmance and
brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Karadağ, A. & İncedere, L. (2017). Türkiye’de
Professional Geographer 57, (2), 312-327. endüstri mirasının korunması, Türkiye Coğrafyası
Araştırmaları Prof. Dr. Mesut Elibüyük’e Armağan
Del Pozo, P.B. & Gonzalez P.A. (2012). Industrial içinde, ed: Ferhat Arslan, 13-42, PEGEM Akademi.
heritage and place identity in Spain: from monuments
to landscapes, Geographical Review, 4, (102), 446- Karadağ, A. & İncedere, L. (2020). Kentsel belleğin
464 sürdürebilirliği açısından İzmir’deki endüstri miras
alanlarının önemi: Alsancak liman ardı bölgesi
Dinç, Y. (2015). Antakya şehir coğrafyası, Mustafa örneği, Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 1, (29), 57-71.
Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hatay. Kerstetter, D. Confer, J. & Bricker, K. (1998).
Industrial heritage attractions: types and tourists,
Dinç, Y. (2017). Antakya (Hatay) merkezi iş alanının Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2, (7), 91-
(MİA) mekânsal gelişimi ve fonksiyonel yapısı. 104.
Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 61, 912-936.
Korkmaz, H. (2007). Kuruluşundan günümüze
Dinç, Y. & Üçeçam Karagel, D. (2017). Antakya Antakya’da su, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
şehrinin kuruluşu ve mekânsal gelişimi, Türkiye Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1, (17), 69-96, Elâzığ.
Coğrafyası Araştırmaları Prof. Dr. Mesut Elibüyük’e
Armağan içinde, ed: Ferhat Arslan, 571-596, PEGEM Koruma Uygulama ve Denetim Bürosu, (KUDEB),
Akademi. Tescil fişleri ve 1/1000 ölçekli koruma amaçlı imar
planı, Hatay.

441

The Relationship Between Industrial Heritage... Yücel DİNÇ - Çetin Furkan USUN

Koyuncu Peker, N. (2019). Conservation principles Usun, Ç.F. & Dinç, Y. (2020). Sabun üretimi
for industrial heritage İzmir-Alsancak liman bakımından kent kimliği ve sabunhanelerin
arkası district, Middle East Technical University endüstriyel miras kapsamında değerlendirilmesi:
Unpublished Master Thesis. Antakya Örneği, Coğrafya Dergisi, 40, 149-162.

Köksal, G.T. & Ahunbay, Z. (2006). İstanbul’daki Üçeçam Karagel, D. (2018). Hatay İli yerleşme
endüstri mirası için koruma ve yeniden kullanım coğrafyası-I, PEGEM Akademi.
önerileri, İTÜ Dergisi a/ mimarlık, planlama,
tasarım, 5, (2), 126-136. Üçeçam Karagel, D. & Karagel, H. (2014). Analysis
of historical commercial centre in terms of marketing
Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, geography: Uzun Çarşı/the Long Bazaar (Antakya/
Ankara. Turkey), European Journal of Research on Education,
2, 166-184.
Ömeroğlu, C. (2006). Antakya kentinin özgünlüğü
ve günümüz koruma sorunlarının Antakya kentsel sit Ünlü, T.S. (2017). Kent kimliğinin oluşumunda
alanında irdelenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri kentsel bellek ve kentsel mekân ilişkisi: Mersin
Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Örneği, Planlama, 27, (1), 75-93

Özbay, E. (2012). Antakya› nın tarihi su dolapları https://ticcih.org/about/charter/ (Date of access:
«naura»lara ışık tutan su kemeri kalıntısının mimari 03.01.2021)
ve tarihi analizi ve restitüsyonu, Sanat Tarihi Dergisi,
2, 73-98 http://www.docomomo-tr.org (Date of access:
07.01.2021)
Özmen, M. (1998). Hatay Erzin’de ve genel olarak
Anadolu’da değirmen ve değirmencilikle ilgili https://www.erih.net (Date of access: 08.01.2021)
kelimeler. Erdem (Ankara), 14 (14), 463-501.
http://www.icomos.org.tr (Date of access:
Pamir, H. (2001). Seleuceia Pieria,Ankara Üniversitesi 08.01.2021)
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora
Tezi, Ankara http://www.e-faith.org (Date of access: 07.01.2021)

Saner, M. (2012). Endüstri mirası: kavramlar, https://www.unesco.org.tr (Date of access:
kurumlar ve Türkiye’deki yaklaşımlar, Planlama 07.01.2021)
Dergisi, (1-2), 53-66.

Sargın, S. & Dinç, Y. (2017). Kültür mirasının
korunmasına yönelik mekânsal bir değerlendirme:
eski (geleneksel) evlerinin fonksiyonel değişimi,
Turkish Studies, (12/13), 477-506.

Temiz, F.M. (2008). Antakya’da sabun üretimi ve
sabunhaneler, Hatay Kültür ve Keşif Dergisi, 14, (2),
14-16.

Turgut, N. (1986). Antakya tarihi ticaret merkezi
mekânsal yapı değişim ve gelişim sürecinin kent
ticaret merkezi planlanmasına etkinliği, Gazi
Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış
Yüksek Lisans Tezi.

TDK, (2011), Türkçe sözlük, On birinci baskı, Türk
Dil Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara

Ulusoy, B. Çengil, A. Özalp Konyar, H. Alpman, A.
Açıkbaş, Ö. Türkölmez, E. & Ezber, G. (2015). Hilton
Antakya Müze Otel, TURSAB Dergisi, 355, 10-18.

442

AS AN INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
VALUE OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION
LANDSCAPES IN AYVALIK

Güldane MİRİOĞLU1

Abstract

Ayvalık is one of the important tourism centers in Turkey. Another identity
element in the district is olive oil production. Olive oil production has a heritage value
in terms of historical background and geographical indication certificate. In this study,
olive oil production in Ayvalık was examined in that its heritage value in terms of both its
production history and its geographical originality. In terms of distribution, many olive
oil factories are close to the sea, in the central neighborhoods of the city, and within
walking distance of each other. However, it can be said that the industrial heritage does
not get the attention that deserves when considering the new uses that displace the
original function or the idle ones. Already they are located in Ayvalık, which is one of the
important tourism centers in Turkey. Olive oil production itself is a valuable product to
be produced with traditional methods. Therefore re-functioning with uses that continue
to function, including the originality of geographical conditions and the integrity of
production processes, will strengthen the urban identity. Keeping the factories alive and
re-functionalizing them without displacing the original function provide a sustainable
contribution to olive oil, to the industrial heritage, to the city, and to human beings in the
long term. Strengthens the spirit and the identity of the city in the context of geographical
integrity.

1   Dr., Balıkesir University, Department of Geography.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-3191-5935

443

As an Industrial Heritage Value, Olive Oil... Güldane MİRİOĞLU

Introduction

Industrial landscapes can lose their industrial function through the development
of technology, the growth of production and need for new facilities, staying in residential
areas and deindustrialization processes, etc. However, even if lose their function, industrial
landscapes are important in the context of the development process of the city where they
are located. In this context, the concept of industrial heritage is a concept that counts these
landscapes, which are evidence, documents, and witness of industrial developments, in the
context of their heritage value. As a term “industrial heritage” has developed in the face of the
threat of extinction of industrial heritage landscapes. Industrial heritage includes tangible items
such as fields, structures, and tools and intangible elements that are related to the construction
of social life which has a cultural and scientific value about the history of the industry. In other
words, it does not consist only of factories, includes all additional elements associated with
the industrial activity (Loures, 2008). In this context, the concept of industrial heritage counter
and covers concepts such as “industrial landscape” or “industrial production area”.

This study aims to draw attention to the concept of “industrial landscape” in terms
of the importance of the holistic approach in the conservation of industrial heritage and
its benefit in reinforcing the holistic perspective. Within the scope of the study, a holistic
perspective on the protection of industrial heritage is discussed over Ayvalık olive oil
production areas. The use of the expression of “olive oil production area” or “olive oil
production landscapes” instead of “olive oil factories” aims to emphasize a holistic
perspective by focusing on the concept of the industrial landscape in itself.

Ayvalık is one of the important production places of olive oil. Ayvalık olive
oil production has both symbolic, touristic, and historical value. Moreover, it has a
geographical registration certificate under the name of “Ayvalık Olive Oil”. Ayvalık olive
oil has geographical specificity in terms of the effect of geographic conditions on the
process of olive formation. Its history is older than its physical existence and backs to the
1870s. In this study, olive oil production in the city center of Ayvalık was examined in that
its heritage value in terms of both its production history and its geographical originality.

In the following section, the concept of industrial heritage is discussed and then
the importance of a holistic approach in the refunctioning of industrial heritage values
is discussed. Then the current situation of olive oil production areas is discussed and
refunctioning proposals are presented that do not displace the former function.

The Concept of Industrial Heritage

Due to the necessity of new technology and new working methods, the industry
itself changes and eliminates the present production systems and infrastructure in
the context of the need for continuous innovation, in other words, destroys itself
(Nikolic´, Drobnjak and C´ulafic, 2020). Historical industrial areas, buildings, tools,
and equipment are evidence of technological development for future generations

444

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

(Nikolic´, Drobnjak and C´ulafic, 2020), document value (Tanyeli and İkiz, 2009),
important information resources of the city in which they are located (Seçer-Kariptaş,
Edirne-Erdinç and Özkazanç-Dinçer, 2015), indicators of the technological level of
its age (Büyükarslan and Güney, 2013), and evidence of industrial developments
(Cengizkan, 2006).

Industrial landscapes define a significant part of a place’s history, thus forming
evidence that the evolution of cultural, social, and economic understanding which
interpret and document important values for urban heritage (Loures, 2008). Industrial
heritage is the historical, sociological, architectural, technological, and scientific
remnants of the industrial culture such as factories, shops, machinery, storages, ports,
and railways (Manisa and Yerliyurt, 2013).

Industrial heritage cover that material items such as areas, structures, ruins,
and tracks that have cultural and scientific values about industrial history, technology,
architecture, and social life (factories, workshops, machinery, mines, refineries,
warehouses, shops, energy production, and distribution areas, etc.) and intangible
items such as social lifestyle, activities, and spirit of place that industry-related (The
Nızhny Tagıl Charter for The Industrial Heritage, 2003; Turgut-Gültekin, 2016).

In this respect, every tangible and intangible industrial element that conveys
the regional or historical development of the industry, new technologies and social
life dependent on technological development to today is within the scope of industrial
heritage (Turgut-Gültekin, 2016). In other words, the industrial heritage does not
consist only of factories, which are the most emblematic construction of industrial
production but include all the additional elements and structures related to the
industrial process (Loures, 2008).

The concept of industrial heritage has developed with the face of the rapid
disappearance of buildings that has heritage value (by the income threat) and with
the increase in awareness of their values (Barbaros-Akay and Örmecioğlu, 2018).
The concept of “industrial heritage” was introduced in England in the mid-twentieth
century, when several industrial landscapes were destroyed (Loures, 2008). Scientific
debates on the protection of industrial buildings and campuses that remained
dysfunctional started in the second half of the 20th century (Köksal, 2012). After the
1970s, the number of qualified conservation and reuse examples started to increase
(Köksal, 2012).

International efforts to protect industrial structures have been institutionalized,
such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and The
International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage (TICCIH).
Another organization working on industrial heritage is ERIH (The European Route
of Industrial Heritage), an international network established in 1999 (Köksal, 2012).
ERIH aims to announce changes in old industrial areas and create touristic interest
through “industrial heritage route”, “stop points”, etc. (Köksal, 2012).

445

As an Industrial Heritage Value, Olive Oil... Güldane MİRİOĞLU

Although its practices date back to earlier times, understanding of industrial
heritage is a concept that has been known with the establishment of TICCIH in
1978 and The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (2003) (Muşkara and
Tuncelli, 2019). Concepts such as “industrial monuments” and “industrial heritage”
were used at the TICCIH Meeting in Sweden in 1978 (Köksal, 2005) and have been
redefined within the scope of “Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage
Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes” which was determined in conjunction with
TICCIH and ICOMOS, in 2011 (Turgut-Gültekin, 2016).

“Industrial heritage consists of the remains of industrial culture which are
of historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value” (The Nizhny
Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage, 2003). “These remains consist of buildings
and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and
refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and
used, transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities
related to the industry such as housing, religious worship or education” (The Nizhny
Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage, 2003). In this respect, it has been stated
that the industrial activity process has fundamental importance together with all its
tangible and intangible manifestations (The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial

Heritage, 2003).

The importance of the holistic approach for refunctionalisation
of industrial heritage values

Industrial heritage is a general concept that encompasses all physical elements
ranging from simple mechanical devices to large industrial areas (Cengizkan, 2006). The
scale of the concept covers single mechanical tools, buildings, and large industrial areas.
In this context, “industrial landscape” is one of the important concepts that regarding
industrial heritage.

Landscape, identifies as a distinctive product of interactions between people and
topography (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts and Whatmore 2009). In this respect, the
landscape identifies as an archive that keeps historical records of the interaction of humans
and nature (Arı, 2005). In this context, the landscape covers tangible and intangible
components. The concept of “industrial heritage” does not consist of only buildings either.
Industrial construction, in addition to buildings, includes multidimensional processes
from population accumulation processes to settlements, from its relationship with the
natural environment to its impact on the natural environment, etc.

The definition of the industrial landscape, as opposed to simply recognizing buildings
in an industrial site, has enabled the entire landscape to be recognized as a single “element”
and to expand the understanding of industrial conservation to accommodate recognized
activity models (Meinig 1979, cited in Loures, 2008). In this respect, the holistic approach
of the geography discipline offers a useful approach for researches on industrial heritage.

446

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Geography is a discipline that examines the subjects-events and formations by
concerning their environment. In other words, physical and human formations in the
context of their mutual relations are within the scope of the discipline of geography by
concerning their environment. Accordingly, the geographical event exists only where
there are mutual causal actions (Tanoğlu, 1964). An event is geographic only if, and to
the extent that, it is connected to the geographical environment, that is, the events that are
in connection at one point on the earth (Tanoğlu, 1964).

The concept of “industrial heritage” also does not consist of single structures
either. In the re-functionalization of the industrial heritage, isolated approaches focusing
only on buildings are criticized and it is suggested to be evaluated in the context of the
integrity of the landscape. In addition to the criticism of focusing on the architectural
features of individual buildings, Loures (2008) criticizes the partial approach in the Boca
do Rio Hotel Resort example, in which the only element remaining from the old building
is a chimney.

In addition to buildings, industrial construction includes multidimensional
processes from population accumulation processes to settlement, its relationship with the
natural environment and its impact on nature, etc. Zingal Forest Management (Ayancık-
Sinop) is an example that can be used to explain this context. Although Zingal Forest
Factory was sold as scrap in 2011 and destroyed, the remains of the transportation system
spread throughout Ayancık, the social facilities and lodgings of the factory, and some
of the in-forest facilities are still standing today (Kaya and Yılmaz, 2017). Although
the Factory itself was destroyed, Ayancık has a rare industrial heritage value (Kaya and
Yılmaz, 2017). Indeed, “industrial heritage” is defined as the remnants of industrial culture
with historical, social, architectural, technological, and scientific value (Köksal, 2012).
They carry a symbol and a memorial value for the local environment in which they are
located (Büyükarslan and Güney, 2013). In addition to the technology of the period, they
contain the knowledge and experiences, traditions, and habits of the society (Büyükarslan
and Güney, 2013). In this respect, studies on industrial heritage take attention to the social
context, locality, and uniqueness of the industrial heritage.

In this scope, the ecological context should also be taken into account. Loures
(2008) points to the integrity of the industrial landscape, in the context of the uniqueness
of places, resulting from the combination of social constructions and natural conditions.
This integrity is exactly are geographical formations that point to the mutual relationship
of physical and human elements.

In the example of Sekapark (Izmit-Turkey), it is stated that the plant stock, which
includes centuries-old plane trees and magnolia trees, formed under the favor of the
isolation of the factory area from the city for many years (Oğuz, Saygı and Akpınar,
2010). Uzun (2014) examined the relationship of the use of the coastal area with the
Sekapark Project, in which the Seka campus was refunctionalized. Uzun (2014) stated
that the level of use of the coastal area by the citizens was increased and the natural
balance in the coastal area was maintained with the project. According to Uzun (2014),

447

As an Industrial Heritage Value, Olive Oil... Güldane MİRİOĞLU

the Sekapark Project increased the interaction of city residents with the coastal area,
unlike the old industrial area that disconnected the city people from the coast. At the same
time, in the coastal area, besides the usage types that ensure sustainable use of the coast,
there are tourism areas with accommodation (4.37 ha), sports areas (6.76 ha), cafeteria
and restaurant areas (0.44 ha), beach areas (1.20 ha), pier, walking and resting areas (3.99
ha) and parking area (3.29 ha) (Uzun, 2014).

However, the Sekapark project has been criticized for not being able to connect
with the old SEKA while establishing a relationship with the sea by various coastal
arrangements that diverge from its former function (Erol, 2017). With Sekapark Project,
new functions were installed to the protected structures, such as Seka paper museum,
visual arts center, exhibition hall, art workshops, cinema, theater, photography, modern
dance workshops, industrial design galleries, education center, cafes, restaurants, library,
meeting halls, wedding halls, entertainment center, bowling alley, books souvenir sales
(Uzun, 2014). According to the information about the new usage functions of the project
area (Oğuz, Saygı and Akpınar, 2010), Seka Paper Museum, Seka Monument, and the
name of Sekapark are formations that remanding the old function. Workshop-galleries,
training center, and exhibition hall regarding the paper production process, can also count
as. Particularly, it is an important approach that visitors to experience printing processes
in working machines (Muşkara and Tunçelli, 2019) in terms of protecting the industrial
heritage with its function.

In this context, a multi-dimensional holistic approach in terms of history, social
context, ecological relations, and similar aspects is one of the most fundamental issues
in the re-functioning of industrial heritage. In the conservation and refunctioning of the
industrial heritage, the regional integrity is not limited to the industrial campus-area. The
fact that the Feriköy Bomonti district takes its name from the Bomonti Beer Factory
(Tanyeli and İkiz, 2009) is an explanatory example of the social contextuality of the
industrial heritage. In this respect, industrial structures and areas are within the scope
of industrial heritage as a whole with tools, equipment, operating processes, cities, and
natural parts (Köksal, 2012).

In this respect, industrial heritage is considered in the context of “protecting and
maintaining the uniqueness of places” (Loures, 2008; Karadağ and İncedere, 2020). In the
context of the “uniqueness of places” also a holistic approach is essential in refunctioning
the industrial heritage. Turgut-Gültekin (2016) criticizes the disregard of the integrity and
the destruction of the spirit of the place in Ankara Sugar Factory Campus by accepting
the cultural heritage of some factories and management buildings according to their
architectural features.

Another issue that stands out in this context is the new functions that are defined to
the industry structures and industry area. Although the building loses its original function,
refunctionalization of the existing shell, preserving it from destruction appears as an
alternative building production technique in terms of the buildings to finance themselves
that have historical-social value (Büyükarslan and Güney, 2013). Industrial heritage

448