INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE IN THE URBAN IDENTITY AND MEMORY AXIS

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AREAS AS
A RISING ASSET OF SUSTAINABLE
URBAN CONSERVATION:
TURKEY’S EXPERIENCE

Arife KARADAĞ1 - Leman İNCEDERE2

Abstract

Industrialization promoted significant changes in the landscape such as more
congestion in urban areas and the urbanization of both natural and rural environments.
With industrialization, cities acquired a new industrial face and a new order. This
new scene was defined by the new workers who demanded new public services and
infrastructures generally in a new society upon the intensification of industries and the
needs of the increasing population and it therefore contributed to the image of the typical
20th-century settlement. However, globalization, industrialization, deindustrialization
and economic (re-)transformation had a deep impact on the traditional industrial zones
throughout the whole world in the last decades. The formal products of the modernist
movement have been worn out and the need to take decisions on the reorganization of the
industrial environment has arisen recently.

The issue attracts the attention of various disciplines and its research is considered
beneficial to understanding the social behavior of individuals and of the society as a whole
(Hewison, 1987; Nuryanti, 1996). In the recent years, a considerable number of researchers
in different disciplines have contributed to evaluating, documenting, and developing the
remains of the industrial society. These researchers have addressed the industrial heritage
as a source and as an integral part of the collective identity and emphasized the need to
take the post-industrial landscapes into consideration in the planning of a city.

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

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

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

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

49

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Practical and theoretical discussions on the adaptation of industrial heritage sites
for various purposes multiplied throughout the last decade. This book touches on the
important elements of industrial heritage in terms of urban identity, sustainability, and
tourism and endeavors to support and develop the academic literature in this field. The
idle factory and manufacturing buildings, transportation infrastructures and derelict
industrial sites located at city centers not only are for land use and rent but also represent
the opportunity for creating and developing new entertainment and cultural activities.
Acquiring new active roles by being renovated, these structures are worth discovery and
use by both tourists and local communities. Industrial heritage involves the elapsing of
time and represents numerous cultural activity layers.

During the research carried out to prepare this book, it was seen that there was an
increase in the interest, particularly in the societies of developed countries, in discovering
and visiting old industrial heritage sites. The industrial landscape including the old
industrial remains and buildings as well as the depots and conserved or non-conserved
factories at various sites opened a new area for the reinterpretation of sources and provided
an interesting foundation for the growth of the creative economy.

The important industrial countries of the world developed regulations and plans
to clean the worn-out and unserviceable parts of the city in Europe, America, and even
Japan (Meiji) and many historic cities witnessed the renovation processes extending from
the demolition of city walls to the opening of new squares (Bandarin and Oers, 2012: 5).
Programs on cleaning these ruined sites and urban renovation programs were launched
and managed by the state particularly in the European cities after the Second World War.
Although these programs were connected with the variation of urban land rent values,
they cannot be explained only with this economic factor. The function of urban renovation
turned out to lay the groundwork for the future restructuring that originated in the 1960s
and that began to become considerably marked in the 1970s (Smith and Williams, 2015:
48-49). Upon the increase in the importance attached to urban renovation and urban
conservation, conservation studies were launched by various institutions such as the
TICCIH, the ICOMOS, and the UNESCO in order to conserve industrial heritage. In line
with the developments experienced, the issue of industrial heritage began to attract attention
in the academic field as well in the last 30 years in particular (Hewison, 1987; Alfrey and
Putnam, 1992; Smith, 2001; Edensor, 2005; Bandarin and Oers, 2012; Douet, 2013; Xie,
2015; Wicke et al., 2018). The interest in the issue is further growing under the influence of
postmodernism.

In Turkey, however, the consciousness of urban renovation and of industrial heritage
took place later than that in the Western European countries with long-term industrial
traditions. Undoubtedly, one cannot speak of any deindustrialization process in Turkey in
the sense that was experienced by the big industrial countries of Europe. The shutdown of
old industrial sites in Turkey is particularly concerned with the developments experienced
in technology as well as with the privatization process. The political process taking place
after the 1980s led to the shutdown of firms, collective dismissals, and the abandonment
of industrial sites and buildings; moreover, the neoliberal developments experienced, the

50

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

economic turmoil and the instability of state policies also prevented one from attaching
the necessary importance to the old industrial heritage sites. As a result of this process, the
conservation of free land was resorted to for the demolition of old factory buildings and for
the privatization of lands, but the problems likely to occur in the urban pattern and, what is
more, the potential opportunities about industrial heritage could not be envisaged.

Industrial heritage sites began to attract attention both during the crisis that occurred
in the urban space and when the socio-economic gains of the city as a result of the studies
carried out concerning the adaptive reuse of the industrial heritage sites particularly in such
countries as Germany, France, England, the Netherlands, and Spain began to be seen. Later
on, a mentality which was sensitive to both the industrial remains and the problems they
caused as well as to the need for the search for an appropriate solution began to form. The
growing sensitivity and the consciousness of contributing to the urban life through adaptive
reuse have begun to find a place in the agenda in Turkey particularly since the 1990s and
there has been an increase in the academic studies on the issue too (Köksal, 2005, 2008,
2013, 2015; Kayın, 2001, 2009, 2013; Karadağ and İncedere, 2017).

In this book, it is first of all intended to seek answers to the following questions on
the basis of the conservation of industrial heritage: (1) Might those old industrial sites which
create spatial expansions be regarded as an important component of the construction of
urban memory and as the integrant of the urban pattern? (2) What should be the methods
which must be pursued and the priorities which must be considered when intending to
introduce the old industrial sites and buildings into the modern pattern of the city? (3)
How much does one adhere to the legal frameworks and the principles which have to be
implemented for the old industrial sites? And (4) How much can the original building
be conserved in terms of the maintenance, simple restoration, and thorough restoration
applications according to the scale of intervention in the buildings at these sites?

The book is basically addressed in two sections apart from the theoretical framework
where the answers to these questions are sought. Firstly, an evaluation is made via those
examples of old industrial sites which have been subjected to adaptive reuse and which have
been projected within the scope of industrial heritage as well as via the idle examples of old
industrial sites which have not been included in any conservation scope with examples from
both the world and Turkey. The fieldwork carried out to draw attention to the main sites with
industrial heritage value in İzmir – an important industrial city of Turkey particularly in the
pre-Republican years and in the early years of the Republic – and to support the transfer of
the economic and social memories of the city to the present time through adaptive reuse is
provided in the second section.

Theorizing the Industrial Heritage:
Conservation, Memory and Identity

Industrial heritage was defined as “the landscapes of nostalgia” by Halewood
and Hannam (2001). Old industrial buildings became important memory and identity

51

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

elements for a city over time. These sites have begun to be regarded as memories in which
the historical and cultural past is preserved also under the influence of postmodernism
particularly recently.

The remains of the industrial culture are defined and re-evaluated as places with
historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value. Industrial buildings may
be designed in different ways for different purposes. Nevertheless, the industrial landscape
is continually being renewed, reconstructed, and reinterpreted and since it is presented
in a renewed feeling of meaning, it depends basically on postmodern imagination (Xie,
2015). Industrial heritage at the same time makes a connection with place identity as
it is concerned with memory, the community, and the past (Del Pozo and Gonzalez,
2012: 447). The humanistic and postmodernist approach that developed after 1970-1980
diverged considerably from the modernistic understanding on the perception of space
and formed a tendency to regard it as an independent and autonomous “place” likely to be
shaped according to aesthetic targets and principles instead of regarding it as a site which
was formed for social purposes. Having become marked particularly with the period of
postmodernism, the concepts of “place”, “human being” and “memory” introduced a new
perspective for urban studies (Incedere, 2019). The importance of industrial heritage
especially in terms of the sustainability and identity of cities is a component which should
not be ignored. As stressed by Sutton and Kemp (2011), a place is predominantly a
dynamic form of material and it is read as a process which entails cultural interpretation,
and which gathers people in certain relationships. A place is based on social structures.
Its pattern activities cover cultural norms, identities, and memories; represent ecological
values; and play a role in creating and sustaining people’s selves.

Industrial Heritage in the Approach to Urban Conservation

Cities are spaces where people from every circle and class live altogether; where
a common life nourished by differences takes shape; and which have demographically
and functionally growing dynamism. This common life has engaged the experts studying
on the city since the very beginning and constituted the indispensable subject of a wide
range of papers and representations trying to catch the character of this life and its deeper
meanings. The long history of urban utopias is like an archive of the effort made for the
sake of “shaping the city in accord with our heart’s desire”, as stated by Park (Harvey, 2012).

Besides, one of the most serious problems of today’s cities is whether they have
their own identity and at what rate and in what ways their existing original identity is,
or cannot be, preserved. Cities with no identity go on growing idly and together with
their problems in almost every country which is insensitive to the issue of urban identity
(Demir, 2006). Every place has a feeling in the urban pattern. Within the recent rapid cycle
of change, advanced capitalism has brought about deindustrialization at many sites with
an old industrial core also under the influence of developing technology and globalization.
This economic regression pattern, which is associated extensively with the industrial
regression at older centers, has culminated in a dramatic dialectic of deterioration and

52

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

opportunity (Smith and Williams, 2015). The city took shape with the processes that
continued throughout the origins of our culture, history, arts, and traditions and became
the place where the society was reborn by continually undergoing change (Cravatte, 1977:
13). One of the most important factors in the growth of cities and in their undergoing of
change is undoubtedly the developments experienced in the field of industry. The future
of those large sites and buildings which became idle upon the shutdown or movement of
the industrial sites at the city centers that became the centers for capital and production
particularly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries is being discussed more and more
with every passing day.

The origination of the concept of “heritage” is connected with the foundation of
modern nation states and the need to define their own traditions and identities (Bandarin
and Oers, 2012: 1). The recognition of the historic urban pattern as cultural heritage
and its definition as an important connection in the urban life and development are
considerably important for land-based conservation. Urban conservation is a long-term
political, economic, and social commitment for a region in order to provide a better
quality of life for its users. Industrial heritage serves many useful social, ecological, and
historical functions in terms of the conservation of the urban pattern (Edensor, 2005).
Conservation covers not only the physical urban pattern but also spatial morphology
and a social dimension which makes the urban heritage very different from the more
“objective” qualities of singular heritage (Orbaşlı, 2002: 8). As emphasized in the report
(2011) the ICOMOS-TICCIH published with respect to the conservation of industrial
heritage, conservation is not only an architectural negotiation but also an economic and
social issue. A wide variety of facilities, buildings, complexes, cities, towns, landscapes and
roads witness the human activities of industrial production all around the world. This cultural
heritage is still in use in many places. While industrialization is an active process with the
feeling of historical continuity, it offers the archaeological pieces of evidence for previous
activities and technologies elsewhere. Industrial heritage includes engineering, architecture
and city-planning, the skills of workers and their societies, their memories, and many social
dimensions which have become tangible in their social lives besides the material heritage
associated with industrial technology and processes”.

In the approach to the conservation of urban heritage, the concept of space
fundamentally rests on two features. The first one is heritage. Heritage entails the existence
of a tangible physical form created by the humanity, whereas the second one also includes
an immaterial psychological atmosphere unique to this form. Moreover, historic buildings
frequently qualify as a strong main material which affects the formation of a place. The
cultural memory of a city is one of the strongest factors that will decide on which buildings
or sites will go beyond merely being spatial structures (Castello, 2006: 64) because a human
being gives a meaning to the environment or the city he/she inhabits and to its physical
structure, chooses them, and organizes them in his/her mind (Göregenli, 2015: 17).

The review that Lineu Castello (2006) carried out on a gasometer facility located
in Porto Alegre in the southernmost region of Brazil by employing the environmental
perception techniques is striking in this line. The study was conducted at two different

53

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

times. The facility was an idle building which was encircled by an unoccupied area and
which was closed for use in 1986, when the first study was carried out. The next study was
performed in 1995 following the rehabilitation of the building and the qualification of
the surrounding areas by applying some minimalist strategies which mostly appealed to
the basic structure of the building. In this process, the building acquired new functional
names and began to work as a multifunctional activity center which housed such facilities
as a cinema, a theater, an art gallery, a library, and a café. In the study, it was concluded
that the old gasometer facility turned into a space of unexpected importance for the city
following conservation and rehabilitation. Having remained derelict at the city center, this
old site therefore acquired a tag as a true and living place.

Especially in the last fifty years, the concept of urban conservation developed into
a universally acknowledged urban policy-making field from a practice confined to few
historic sites which were mostly European-centered (Bandarin, 2016: 341). The strongest
approach to the conservation of urban heritage is to place emphasis on the role that
historic buildings may play in the revival of those sites which have lost their economic
and social liveliness (Rojas, 1999: 23). A book entitled “Bright Future: The Re-use of
Industrial Buildings” was published by Binney et al. (1990), who highlighted the reuse of
buildings in terms of conservation and change and it was stressed in the book that the
interest in and awareness of the issue were rather limited then. Binney et al. tried to draw
people’s attention to the possibilities of reusing old industrial depots and factories and
put emphasis on the importance of these studies in the senses of the adaptive reuse of old
industrial buildings and of making the industrialization memory of the city continuous
with the present life. As expressed by Binney et al (1990)., industrial buildings are robust
and permanent and they are convenient sites for adaptive reuse in this respect. What is
more important is the fact that the old industrial facilities or sites concerned are the most
important witnesses of the industrialization processes of the countries and of the cities
where they are located. The key to reviving the economy and the physical area revolves
around people’s production of new meanings and new identities today. When considered
from this perspective, industrial heritage helps form a place meaning and at the same time
integrates people with the concepts of belonging, ownership, and, consequently, identity
(Kuusisto, 1999).

Fundamental principles in the conservation
of industrial heritage

the old industrial sites which constitute the subject of the study are widely examined
in the “brownfield” status due to various qualities of theirs. The term ‘brownfield’ was
first used in the 1970s to define some sort of regeneration process of the available steel
factories in the steel industry of the United States and used with reference to the issue
of “the management of old industrial properties” at a conference in the early 1990s and
this use began to flourish rapidly in the public and private sectors. Even though the
brownfields which have lost their former functions in the industrialized countries are
each perceived firstly as an urban risk area owing to the problems they cause concerning

54

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

pollution and security, it should not be disregarded that they each correspond to a space
of opportunities in terms of redevelopment (Alpan, 2012). When old industrial zones
lose their functions over time and turn into spaces of problems that will negatively affect
the urban life socio-economically and environmentally, the physical regeneration of these
sites, the rehabilitation of their infrastructure and their conversion into new areas of use
are of distinct importance (Nikoliç, 2014). Likewise, the reutilization of old industrial
sites, their revival or their reestablishment with their new function through sustainable
plan decisions within the framework of urban transformation is gradually engaging the
agenda of cities more and more. Urban transformation is the decisions and practices which
ascribe a new identity to derelict and worn-out urban areas in sociocultural, economic,
and physical terms (Tolga, 2006). Within urban transformation, brownfields undergo
a transformation in the form of an intervention in the unoccupied site resulting from
deindustrialization in line with economic, environmental, and social benefits (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The urban transformation process of brownfields
Source: Nikoliç, 2014

According to Roberts and Sykes (2000), the rehabilitation of old industrial sites
and their inclusion in the urban life with a new function revive the local economy and
create new spatial formations and new areas of use which have been subjected to adaptive
reuse. This process constitutes a driving force for urban regeneration. One of the most
important processes in such urban regeneration projects is planning and each stage of it
should be constructed meticulously.

After those old industrial sites/buildings which have become problematic in the
city have been determined and included in the project process, one should decide on
the method to be employed to transform these urban sites, which became unserviceable,
derelict, and dilapidated over time, in agreement with the current socio-economic and
physical conditions/needs. One or several of the methods of renovation, rehabilitation,
conservation, gentrification, and integration can be used altogether according to the
current situation of an old industrial site/building (Figure 2).

55

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Figure 2. Methods used in the transformation of industrial heritage

Addressing the institutional processes of spatial transformation in an integrated
fashion besides its socio-economic and environmental dimensions. Economic and
political support is considerably essential in the process of transformation of old industrial
sites. This support may be allocated from the national or regional economic development
budget or by allowing regional charities for the special organization of the old industrial
sites under certain conditions. This is not the same for every site.

Especially the development of newly developing sites is of primary importance.
A transformation within this framework encompasses the rehabilitation of physical
infrastructures; the enhancement of usefulness, of being of good quality, and of
entrepreneurship; and the development of connections (Regional Strategies for Industrial
Areas, 2013). Besides, it is essential to consider the traditional and cultural factors
in the methods applied. The most important issue in the selection of the policy to be
implemented in the transformation of old industrial zones is undoubtedly sustainable
urban development.

In general, spatial transformation is associated with the development of
environmental quality. The industrial sites which have become problematic by losing their
function and previous importance should be reintroduced into the city in agreement with
the modern living conditions with the holistic planning approaches that aim at urban
transformation (Roberts and Skyes, 2000). According to Punter (2002), some 5 similarly
conducted principles stand out in this process:

56

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

• The redesigning process should be organized and planned very well.
• These sites should be suitable for global trends and new uses.
• They should meet the needs around them better and their connections with

the environment should be developed.
• They should have visual consistency and be aesthetic.
• They should not lead to environmental degradation or contain pollutants but

should carry the qualities of efficient energy and easy access and be sustainable.
The understanding worldwide that old industrial sites constituted cultural
heritage which should be conserved, the development of conservation approaches
and the endeavors to formulate joint planning approaches gave rise to the need
for international representation and intervention. The early initiatives concerning
the conservation of old industrial sites and buildings commenced in England – the
country where industry was first born and developed – and spread to other countries,
thereby becoming an important issue. The issue of what assets would be included in
industrial heritage and of how these sites would be identified remained polemical
for a long while. Today the definition in the “NIZHNY TAGIL” Charter, signed in
2003 and prepared by the International Committee for the Conservation of the
Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), is the most accepted one. As stated in the charter,
“industrial heritage: consists of the remains of industrial culture which are of historical,
technological, social, architectural or scientific value. 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
industry such as housing, religious worship or education.” (Nizhny Tagil, 2003). This
document explains the industrial heritage values as well as the maintenance and
conservation activities.
The charter in question mentions that the industrial buildings and facilities
cannot be considered singular buildings and facilities which are independent from the
urban/regional built environment, settlement identity, and public/social life in which
they are located and which they themselves shape. For instance, the transportation
network by which the raw material is brought, the depot buildings where it is stored,
the large exhibition halls and stores, bazaar buildings, and wholesale food market
buildings where the product obtained after production is exhibited and put for sale,
the workers’ houses that best reflect the social dimension of production, etc. are
addressed within the scope of this heritage. Bridges, canals, tunnels and railways – the
transportation structures which provide the bringing of the raw material required
for production and the transfer of the post-production product to necessary places
– are under the subtitle of technical structures, while stations can be classified as the
transportation buildings of industrial heritage (Kıraç, 2010).

57

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

The adaptive reuse activities which provide the conservation of old industrial
heritage are among the striking activities in terms of the preservation and sustenance of
the urban identity. Therefore, when designing new uses, the original building and material
should be conserved as much as possible and only those interventions which will attach
importance to the historical and cultural values of these buildings should be allowed.
Besides, for the better culmination of the process, it is a must to plan the performed
interventions with the authorized institution and the relevant disciplines (Romeo et al.,
2015).

The reuse of old industrial sites has recently become an important sphere of
discussion and interest for various disciplines, particularly architecture. Reuse, accessibility
and character have been the emphasized important issues in this process. Additionally,
various design concepts and the designing of old industrial buildings without being
impaired and without losing their characters are on the agenda as the sensitive points to
which attention should be paid (Oeverman and Mieg, 2015).

Figure 3. World heritage sites
Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

As they are common historic and cultural assets of the whole humanity, they
were addressed under a separate title by the UNESCO as well and conservation criteria
were determined. of 1,031 sites inscribed on the world heritage list as of 2015, 79 were
determined as industrial heritage sites within this framework. It is observed that these
industrial heritage sites are particularly concentrated in the continent of Europe as
they were the initial development areas of industry. Some 50 industrial heritage sites
in UNESCO’s heritage list are located in the continent of Europe (Figure 3. http://whc.
unesco.org/en/list).

58

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

With the natural outcomes brought about by the rapidly developing urban
change and variability, examples of reuse of industrial heritage for a wide variety of
and different purposes are seen worldwide and throughout Europe. The most marked
examples with these qualities have been concentrated in the city of Manchester
and its inner regions in England; Ruhr area of Germany, particularly Essen; the
traditional industrial zones of Northern France; Basque Bilbao and its inner regions
in Southern Europe; and Silesia and Ostava regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
The important industrial heritage sites in UNESCO’s world cultural heritage list of
industrial monuments/sites are as follows (Table 1).

The buildings or sites inscribed on the world heritage list should have a distinguished
universal value and meet at least one of the 10 criteria determined by the UNESCO. When
the industrial heritage sites and buildings were examined, it was seen that they generally
met the following criteria:

I. To represent an important example of human creativity;
II. To display the progress in architecture and technology in terms of city

planning, landscape, and monumental arts;
III. To witness a unique cultural tradition of a living or lost civilization;
IV. To be a building, an architectural structure or a technological instrument

which has witnessed important developmental stages of the history of
humanity;
V. To be an important example of the land or sea use that represents a culture;
and to be artistic or literary works that can be associated directly and tangibly
with beliefs, ideas, and ways of life;
VI. To include superior natural phenomena or to be aesthetic sites with
extraordinary natural beauties; and
VII. To protect biological diversity and natural habitats also including the
species with important universal value that are threatened in terms of nature
protection.

59

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Table 1. UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage List of Industrial Monuments/Sites

Year of Country of Location Industrial Monuments and Sites Criteria
Inscription

1 1978 Poland Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal (iv)
Salt Mines

2 1979 Syrian Arab Republic Ancient City of Damascus (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi)

3 1979 Croatia Old City of Dubrovnik (i), (iii), (iv)

4 1980 Norway Røros Mining Town and the (iii), (iv), (v)
Circumference

5 1980 Brazil Historic Town of Ouro Preto (i), (iii)

6 1982 Brazil Historic Centre of the Town of (ii), (iv)
Olinda (iv), (vi)
7 1985 Brazil Historic Centre of Salvador de (i), (ii), (iv)
Bahia
8 1985 Spain Old Town of Segovia and its
Aqueduct

9 1985 France Pont du Gard (Roman Aqueduct) (i), (ii), (iv)

10 1986 United Kingdom of Ironbridge Gorge (i),(ii),(iv),(vi)
Great Britain and (i), (ii), (iv)
Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of
11 1987 Great Britain and City of Bath
Northern Ireland

12 1987 Germany Hanseatic City of Lübeck (iv)

13 1988 Mexico Historic Town of Guanajuato and (i),(ii),(iv),(vi)
Adjacent Mines (iv), (v)
14 1988 Cuba Trinidad and Valle de Los
Ingenios

15 1991 Indonesia Prambanan Temple Compounds (i),(iv)

16 1993 Sweden Engelsberg Ironworks (iv)
Historic Town of Banská
17 1993 Slovakia Štiavnica and the Technical (iv),(v)
Monuments in its Vicinity (ii),(iv)
18 1994 Germany Volklingen Ironworks (i),(ii)
City of Vicenza and the (iv), (v)
19 1994 Italy Palladian Villas of the Veneto
Old Town Lunenburg
20 1995 Canada

60

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

21 1995 Sweden Hanseatic Town of Visby (iv), (v)
Verla Groundwood and Board (iv)
22 1996 Finland Mill (i),(ii),(iv),(vi)
Canal du Midi
23 1996 France

24 1997 The Netherlands The Historic Area of Willemstad, (ii),(iv), (v)
Inner City and Harbour, Curaçao

25 1997 The Netherlands Mill Network at Kinderdijk- (i),(ii),(iv)
Elshout

26 1997 Spain Las Médulas (i), (ii), (iii),(iv)
The Naval Port of Karlskrona (ii),(iv)
27 1998 Sweden Historic Site of Lyons (ii), (iv)

28 1998 France

29 1998 The Netherlands Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. (i), (ii),(iv)
Wouda Steam Pumping Station)

30 1998 Belgium The Four Lifts on the Canal du (iii),(iv)
Centre and their Environs, La (ii),(iii),(iv)
31 1998 Belgium Louvière and Le Roeulx
Flemish Béguinages

32 1998 Austria Semmering Railway (ii),(iv)

33 1999 Belgium The Historic Belfries of Belgium (ii), (iv)
and France
34 1999 Brazil Historic Centre of the Town of (ii), (iv)
Diamantina (iii), (vi), (vii),(x)
35 1999 China (ii), (iv)
Mount Wuyi (iii), (iv)
36 1999 France (ii),(iv)
The Belfries of Belgium and
37 1999 France France
Saint-Emilion
38 1999 India Mountain Railways of India

39 1999 Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape (iii), (v), (vi)

40 2000 Belgium Historic Centre of Brugge (ii), (iv), (vi)

41 2000 Belgium Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (i),(iii), (iv)
(Mons)

42 2000 Cuba Archaeological Landscape of the
First Coffee Plantations in the (iii), (iv)
South-East of Cuba

61

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

43 2000 France The Loire Valley between Sully- (i),(ii), (iv)
sur-Loire and Chalonnes

44 2000 Italy City of Verona (ii),(iv)

45 United Kingdom of
2000 Great Britain and Blaenavon Industrial Landscape (iii), (iv)
Northern Ireland

46 2001 Sweden Mining Area of the Great Copper (ii), (iii),(v)
Mountain in Falun

United Kingdom of
47 2001 Great Britain and Derwent Valley Mills (ii), (iv)
Northern Ireland

2001 United Kingdom of
48 Great Britain and New Lanark (ii), (iv), (vi)
Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of Saltaire
49 2001 Great Britain and (ii), (iv)
Northern Ireland

50 2001 Germany Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial (ii), (iii)
Complex in Essen

51 2001 France Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs (ii), (iv)

52 2003 Chile Historic Quarter of the Seaport (iii)
City of Valparaíso

53 2004 Australia Royal Exhibition Building and (ii)
Carlton Gardens

54 2004 Portugal Landscape of the Pico Island (iii), (v)
Vineyard Culture

55 2004 United Kingdom of Liverpool-Maritime Mercantile (ii), (iii), (iv)
Great Britain and City
Northern Ireland

56 2005 Chile Humberstone and Santa Laura (ii), (iii), (iv)
Saltpeter Works

57 2006 Chile Sewell Mining Town (ii)

58 2006 China Yin Xu (ii),(iii),(iv),(vi)

59 2006 Poland Centennial Hall in Wroclaw (i), (ii), (iv)

60 2006 Spain Vizcaya Bridge (i), (ii)

61 2006 United Kingdom of Cornwall and West Devon Mining (ii), (iii), (iv)
Great Britain and Landscape
Northern Ireland

62

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

62 2007 Canada Rideau Canal (i), (iv)

63 2007 Japan Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its (ii), (iii), (v)
Cultural Landscape

64 2008 Switzerland Rhaetian Railway in the Albula / (ii),(iv)
Bernina Landscapes

65 2008 China Fujian Tulou (iii), (iv), (v)

66 2008 Mexico Protective Town of San Miguel (ii),(iv)
and the Sanctuary of Jesús
Nazareno de Atotonilco

67 2008 Cuba Historic Centre of Camagüey (iv), (v)

68 2009 Iran Shushtar Historical Hydraulic (i),(ii),(v)
System

69 2009 United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal (i), (ii), (iv)
Northern Ireland

70 2009 Switzerland La Chaux-de-Fonds / Le Locle (iv)

71 2010 Mexico Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (ii), (iv)

72 2012 Belgium Major Mining Sites of Wallonia (ii), (iv)

73 2012 Bahrain Pearling, Testimony of an Island (iii)
Economy

74 2012 France Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin (ii), (iv), (vi)

75 2014 Israel Caves of Maresha and Bet- (v)
Guvrin in the Judean Lowlands (ii), (iv)
76 2014 Japan as a Microcosm of the Land of
the Caves
Tomioka Silk Mill and Related
Sites

77 2015 Japan Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial (ii), (iv)
Revolution: Iron and Steel,
Shipbuilding and Coal Mining

78 2014 The Netherlands Van Nellefabriek (ii), (iv)

79 2015 Norway Rjukan-Notodden Industrial (ii), (iv)
Heritage Site

Source: Organized with the data obtained from UNESCO’s official website. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

63

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Of the sites acknowledged as the UNESCO industrial heritage on the basis of
the above-mentioned criteria, New Lanark and Saltaire are among the most important
industrial heritage sites established in England – the place where industry was born in the
world. New Lanark (Photo 1a) was created by transforming a village set up next to cotton
mills into an industrial model. The village, which began to be built in 1785, carried on its
activity until 1968 and has undergone very little physical change to date. The old wool mill
town of Saltaire (Photo 1b) was set up in 1853 and inscribed on the world heritage list
in 2001 by the UNESCO. This old town houses art galleries, cafés, restaurants, and many
social and artistic activities.

Located in Germany – one of the most important countries where industry
developed – and having lost its industrial function in 1986, Zollverein Coal Mine (Photo
2) is also of distinct importance in the world industrial heritage. Used as a cultural complex
today, Zollverein Mine is one of the best examples of the transformation of the biggest coal
mine of Europe into an art land. These sites are visited every year by many domestic and
foreign tourists.

Photo 1. New lanark (a), saltaire (b)
Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

Photo 2. The zollverein coal mine industrial complex, Germany
Source: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/975/

64

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

We may include the reuse of Salina Salt Mine in Romania, the Cultural Complex of
Friche la Belle de Mai in Marseille, RAW-Tempel or UFA Factory in Berlin, the Gasworks,
the Chocolate Factory, and New Tobacco Depot Building in London, Royal Mills in the
city of Manchester, La Fabbrica Del Vapore in Milano, and the Darling Foundry and
Raymond Factory in the city of Montreal in Canada for cultural purposes, the reuse of
the warehouses of the old Dairy Farm of Ta Kwa Tan in Hong Kong for art, and the use of
the Cotton Mill and the Old Tivoli Brewery in Denver in America as multi-purpose social
facilities today in the important examples of the reuse of the old industrial sites in Europe
and worldwide, although they are not in UNESCO’s industrial cultural heritage list.

These sites are some of the important projects transformed with artistic design,
visual arts, photography, dancing, theater, cinema, music, and architecture. Some of such
important industrial heritage sites are inscribed on the industrial heritage list every year
through the conservation and sustenance studies conducted by the UNESCO.

Apart from the studies carried out by the UNESCO, it is seen that significant steps
are taken worldwide within the conceptual, legal, institutional, and cultural frameworks in
order to preserve the industrial heritage. The graduate programs opened at the universities
in England and America concerning the conservation of industrial heritage, the struggle
by nongovernmental organizations, the institutions aiming to document and conserve
the industrial heritage within the international framework such as the TICCIH (The
International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage), the ICOMOS (the
International Council on Monuments and Sites), and the DOCOMOMO (The International
Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods
of the Modern Movement), the conferences and seminars regularly organized by these
institutions and the periodicals they issue, the expansion of the concept of industrial
heritage from the building scale to the regional scale and the inclusion of policies on the
conservation of such sites in the legal legislation are a few of these initiatives (Köksal,
2000). The continuation of these initiatives by multiplying is considerably valuable in
terms of the comprehension of the importance of old industrial sites within the urban
pattern.

Conservation of the industrial heritage in Turkey

Turkey is a country with a universal level of richness in and diversity of cultural
heritage. This lays a responsibility on Turkey at the international level as well. Thus, all
staff members taking part in the conservation process should have a good command of
the international developments and decisions besides the national framework on the field
of conservation and meet on the common communication ground.

Within this scope, Turkey ratified many decisions by the Council of Europe and
the UNESCO; legalized the Venice Charter (1964), the Convention on the Protection of
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), the Convention on the Conservation of the
Architectural Heritage of Europe (1985), and the European Convention on the Protection
of the Archaeological Heritage (1992); and turned them into documents of municipal law.

65

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

However, since some laws and regulations that organized the field of conservation
contained provisions with a quality that either directly or indirectly threatened
conservation, the TGNA (the Turkish Grand National Assembly) drew up the Charter
for the Conservation of the Architectural Heritage of Turkey in 1982 with an approach
that adopted the considerations addressed in such documents as the Convention on the
Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Convention on the Conservation
of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, and the European Convention on the Protection
of the Archaeological Heritage and the international documents prepared by the ICOMOS.
In this conservation charter, industrial heritage was defined as “the buildings, production
equipment, building parts, and settlements in which industrial production processes took
place and/or which were produced with the technology of the Industrial Revolution, but
which remained unserviceable over time, as well as the natural and urban landscapes in
which they are located make up the industrial heritage” (the Charter for the Conservation
of the Architectural Heritage of Turkey, Icomos Turkey, 2013). This document was
prepared in order for it to form a source for a cultural policy on the scale of Turkey. In
order for the buildings or groups of buildings to be conserved within the scope of this
conservation charter and in order for them to qualify as cultural properties, the industrial
site or building to be acknowledged as heritage is first of all expected to have certain
originality in terms of material, design, and cultural values. This originality should not be
upset but should be conserved at the stages of the arrangements performed and of reuse. A
building’s possession of conservation value as an industrial site depends on its displaying
of continuity, its providing of information on the social, cultural, and economic lives of
the people living at the site where that building was located in history as well as on the
technologies they developed, its carrying of aesthetic and artistic value, and the ability of
the building to acquire a place in the modern society following its adaptive reuse. As it
will be seen when the conservation values (Figure 4) are examined, the conservation of
industrial heritage entails the establishment of a balance between conserving the past with
its own value and meeting new demands. Industrial heritage is a relatively novel concept
in comparison with the other heritage assets in Turkey.

Therefore, it is firstly necessary to produce institutional rationales and plans to
create new cultural objects. At this stage, it is essential to document the old heritage sites,
to diagnose their qualities, to identify from what aspects they should be conserved, and
to share this information with the necessary people/institutions. In the following process,
appropriate intervention scale, intervention approach and forms of intervention to
conserve the values of the industrial site or building are determined by public or private
institutions and if a decision is taken to this end, studies to form new functions for old
sites may be launched.

Even though industrial heritage is partly a novel concept, its sphere of policy has
acquired a multidisciplinary state and been adopted rapidly in the form of adaptive reuse
in urban projects, particularly for urban regeneration. Conservation of industrial heritage
is concerned with defending the cultural significance of worn-out industrial sites and with
their transformation into both culturally and economically appropriate places. By making
the connection of these sites with the urban regeneration process, we may consider the

66

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 4. Approaches to the conservation of the architectural heritage in Turkey
Source: Organized from the charter for the conservation of the architectural heritage of Turkey by icomos
Turkey

conservation of industrial heritage one of the urban development models. The close
relationship between heritage sites and local communities has necessitated addressing
the issue of conservation with cultural, spatial, and economic concerns. As conservation
endeavors cover these extensive worries, a collaborative planning system is necessary to
coordinate the endeavors of stakeholders and different planning agencies (Cho and Shin,
2014).

In order to better comprehend the process of conservation of the industrial heritage
in our country and its distribution, it will be appropriate to evaluate the fundamental
developmental stages of industry. In the Ottoman period, the industrial buildings were
concentrated in and around İstanbul the most due to the economic and social structures
of the city. Factories began to be set up in İstanbul after the 1830-40s, with the number
of factories in İstanbul reaching 265 in the early 20th century; nevertheless, as the value
of these buildings within the urban culture could not be understood, most of them were
demolished within economic rent and only 43 of them have survived to date (Karadağ,
2000). Many industrial facilities in our country besides those in İstanbul were abandoned
for various economic, political, and social reasons in the 1990s and turned into economic,
social, and physical ruined zones. When the public industrial buildings of the Republican
period were addressed, it was seen that they had also lost their function and intensity of
use. The reason why those facilities which were sold either completely or by parceling

67

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

them out through privatization were purchased was generally the building lands on which
they were located. Whilst urban transformation in this sense requires great cost at the
beginning, this cost is regained with a successful transformation and job opportunities
increase in and around the area concerned, thereby making economic and social
contributions to the city (Kayın, 2013).

Today industrial heritage is comprised of the facilities and buildings which are
the spaces in the historical transformation processes and for the newly emerging forms
of industrial production; which shape the entire new whole of urban-social relationships
through the organization of the environment in which they are located as well as of the
accumulation of capital; and which in this sense rise as the benchmarks of the new urban
space. Within this scope, addressing industrial heritage as an object of architectural practice
that consists only of material buildings does not mean the conservation and utilization
of industrial heritage in the true sense. On the contrary, this leads to the loss of those
qualities of buildings and facilities which enable them to be within the scope of industrial
heritage (Kaya, 2012). To prevent this, the cultural, historical and socio-economic values
of industrial heritage sites or buildings should be determined and recorded in terms of
structure and originality. These processes should be carried out by means of monument/
site index cards and inventory records by authorized institutions. It is seen that in Turkey,
these studies cannot be carried out at the desired level and as routinely as desired and fail
to meet the necessary criteria as compared with their analogues in Europe.

Following the determination and recording procedures that should be carried out
with respect to old industrial sites, the scope of the implementation should be determined
by synthesizing the obtained information. Considering the requirements of the planning
approach, this process is organized as follows (Kaya, 2012):

• To determine the conservation criteria
• To determine the conservation proposals / forms of intervention
• To determine the types of conservation and utilization
• To take use and functional decisions
• To take decisions on new building
In Turkey, “the industrial and commercial buildings” were also determined among
the immovable cultural properties registered by the Directorate General for Cultural
Properties and Museums depending on the criteria concerned and the Conservation,
Implementation and Supervision Bureaus (KUDEB) and project bureaus concerning
these buildings were set up depending on Law No. 2863 on the Conservation of Cultural
and Natural Properties. As of 2015, the number of facilities included in the scope of
registered industrial heritage in Turkey within this scope was recorded as 3,745. When
the distribution of these facilities by province was examined, İzmir ranked first with 758
facilities, followed by İstanbul with 490 facilities and Manisa with 321 facilities (Figure 5).
However, only a very few of these registered industrial and commercial buildings have
been organized, transformed into new uses, and included in the urban life.

68

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Figure 5. Registered industrial and commercial buildings in Turkey by province
Source: http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,44799/illere-gore-korunmasi-gerekli-tasinmaz-kultur-varligi-i-.html
created from the data here.

The examples of industrial heritage in Turkey
that underwent adaptive reuse

Conservation and reutilization of the buildings within the scope of industrial
heritage take place by providing the buildings with new and proper functions. To address
the practical dimension of the issue of adaptive reuse in various aspects, those buildings
from Turkey which completed their adaptive reuse, which had a significant place in the
field of architecture, and which stood out in terms of the transformation of industrial
heritage were mentioned briefly.

The majority of the old industrial sites that have been organized and subjected to
adaptive reuse in Turkey in the recent years are located in İstanbul, which is the area where
industry was first born and developed in our country, whereas Bursa, Kocaeli and İzmir
are other important cities in this sense.

A. Silahtarağa Power Plant (Kâğıthane, İstanbul, 1913-1983): As a source of
energy with little pollution but high efficiency in its use, electricity is at the same time
an object of prestige. Power plants were also constructed for other main Anatolian cities
such as Ankara, İzmir, and Adana as of 1910. Nevertheless, its use firstly to illuminate the
Palace and the streets and then in tram operating as well as in domestic and industrial
consumption in İstanbul came up on the agenda. In 1913, Silahtarağa Power Plant, the first
thermal power station of Turkey, was constructed on the flat area between the Alibeyköy
and Kâğıthane Brooks. A series of other power stations were going to be put into service in
İstanbul until 1928, which was the date of construction of the Power Plant and Gasworks
of Ankara – the new capital. The factory was established by projecting it in an area of
118,000 square meters in 1911 and its land was bought later. The power plant was put

69

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

A Silahtarağa Power Plant (The Campus of Bilgi University)
B Feshane (Fez Factory) (Cultural and Art Center)
C Cibali Tobacco Factory (Kadir Has Campus and Rezan Has Museum)
D Darphane-i Amire (Imperial Mint) (Museum and Exhibition Area)
E Bomonti Brewery (Entertainment and Cultural-Art Center)
F Tophane-i Amire (Imperial Cannon Foundry) (Museum)
G Lengerhane (Anchor House) (Rahmi Koç Museum)
H Kasımpaşa Salt Warehouse (Medina-Turgul DDB Advertising Agency)

Figure 6. The industrial sites in İstanbul that have been subjected to adaptive reuse

70

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

into operation in late 1913, started production as of February 1914, and began to provide
electricity for the trams, network, and subscribers of the city (Cengizkan, 2001: 32).

Established in 1913, the power plant was shut down in 1983 on the grounds that
it completed its economic life (Cengizkan, 2006). The power plant remained idle for
about 20 years after production had been halted; was hired for 20 years and restored by
İstanbul Bilgi University; and began to serve as a university campus, a museum, and an
art gallery. Furthermore, the facility, which became one of the most important concert
spaces of İstanbul together with Küçük Çiftlik Park, was renovated in 2007 and took the
name “Santral İstanbul”. The energy museum which is located within Santral İstanbul and
which goes on being used actively today was awarded “the DASA Award” in 2012 by the
European Museum Academy.

Photo 3. Silahtarağa power plant, the 1930s
Source: http://www.santralistanbul.org/pages/index/about/tr/

Photo 4. The campus building of Bilgi University, 2018.
Source: The photograph was taken by L. İncedere.

71

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Photo 5. The former (right) and new (left) uses of the Fez Factory
Source: http://www.feshane.com.tr/tr/

B. Feshane (Fez Factory) (Eyüp, İstanbul, 1826-1986): The Ottoman State
established the Fez Factory in 1833. When the building of Feshane in Kadırga that
belonged to Hazine-i Hassa began to fall short of the needs, the factory was moved to a
palace around Eyüp in 1833-35. As of this date, weaving was also performed in addition
to fez production in Feshane, the management of which was assigned to Belgian experts
(Kurt et al., 2016).

This historic factory was established on the Golden Horn (Haliç), İstanbul in
1835 and it worked for about 150 years until 1986. Its production was halted in 1986.
Transferred to the Military Administration (1877), Sanayi ve Maadin Bankası (the Bank
for Industry and Mining) (1925), and Sümerbank (1937) after its establishment, the factory
(Küçükerman, 1995) began to be used as a museum of contemporary handicrafts in 1992
by means of İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality and a private establishment. The building
became unusable upon the rising of water on the Golden Horn in the following years and
it was restored again in 1998 and transformed into an international fair, meeting, concert,
gala, and exhibition area.

C. Cibali Tobacco Factory (Fatih, İstanbul, 1884-1995): Cibali Tobacco Factory
does not consist only of the production building. Besides, various storage-related units of
the Enterprise of TEKEL are also located at this site. Cibali Tobacco Factory was affected
by the policies of liberal economy that began to be implemented after 1980. This led to the
experiencing of a process of firstly reducing and then halting production at the factory.
After it had been decided to vacate the buildings of the factory, a different use of it came
up on the agenda. The building and land of the factory are used as a campus of Kadir Has
University in the field of education (Ayık and Avcı, 2018: 513).

Cibali Tobacco Factory, one of the early architectural works of our history of industry,
was established on a building land of 10,385 m² in 1884 and carried on its production until
1995. Vacated in 1995, the building was allocated to Kadir Has University in order to be
utilized as an educational institution later and, following a restoration of about 1.5 years,
it was put into service for educational purposes in 2002. Moreover, many oral activities,
exhibitions, publicity activities and seminars are held at Kadir Has Central Campus and in
Rezan Has Museum (http://www.aktuelarkeoloji.com.tr/rezan-has-muzesi).

72

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 6. The former (left) and new (right) uses of Cibali Tobacco Factory
Source: https://www.rhm.org.tr/tutun-fabrikasi/

D. Darphane-i Amire (Imperial Mint) (Eminönü, İstanbul, 1727-1967):
Darphane-i Amire has a significant place as industrial heritage because production was
performed at its location as of the 16th century and it carried on its function as the coin
and stamp mint of the Republic of Turkey until 1967. In addition, it is located in a zone
which houses the most important museums of the city such as Topkapı Palace Museum, the
Museum of Hagia Eirene, the Museum of Hagia Sophia, and İstanbul Archaeology Museums
and it is therefore located at Sultanahmet World Heritage Site of the Historic Peninsula.

The buildings of Darphane-i Amire underwent many changes throughout the
period that elapsed from their dates of construction to their dates of last use. These changes
are comprehensive restorations, extensions, and the equipment and modernization that
changed with the development of the money minting technique. It may be stated that the
roofs of some buildings were also restored or completely replaced during these changes
or depending on the factor of time. On the other hand, the roof structures of the two
buildings under examination, which are original solutions, have survived to date despite
the interventions and losses (Şengül and Tanyeli, 2017: 103).

Used as the mint until 1967 after the opening of Topkapı Palace to public as a
museum in 1924, the buildings were vacated upon the termination of this service and

Photo 7. The former (right) and new (left) uses of the building of Darphane-i Amire
Source: http://conceptteam.org/istanbul/

73

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

remained idle for 14 years. Following their transfer to the Ministry of Culture in 1981,
they were used as a conservation laboratory and İstanbul Directorate for Surveying. The
Foundation of History, to which Darphane-i Amire was allocated in 1995, transformed the
buildings, almost all of which were abandoned and vacated for 28 years, into a museum
and exhibition area (Cengizkan, 2007).

E. Bomonti Brewery (Feriköy, İstanbul, 1890-1991): Located within the
boundaries of Şişli and being one of the early industrial zones of İstanbul, Bomonti is an
area between Feriköy Fırın Street and Sıracevizler Avenue and the slopes of the Baruthane
Brook. The past of Bomonti industrial zone dates back to 1892. The oldest industrial
facility in the zone is the brewery (Sağlam, 2017: 31).

Bomonti gradually began to develop into an industrial zone upon the establishment
of Bomonti Brewery. Squats, industrial establishments and houses coexisted in the
zone and it in this sense qualified as an industrial zone which differed from the other
industrial zones of İstanbul. Furthermore, it might be stated that Bomonti, which had
been established as a “suburban industrial zone”, turned into an “urban industrial zone”
over time (Avcı, 2019).

Photo 8. Bomonti Brewery in the Ottoman Period (Right), pre-restoration Bomonti Brewery, 2010 (Left)
Source: Yiğit, 2010

Photo 9. The current use of Bomonti Brewery
Source: The photograph was taken by L. İncedere.

74

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Having carried on production under the Administration of TEKEL until 1994,
Bomonti Brewery halted production about 100 years later. Over time, new units were
included in the factory, which was established in Feriköy in 1890. Located on a land
of 40,000 square meters, the factory is comprised of numerous buildings. The factory
began to be managed by TEKEL in 1938 and was purchased after a long while by Efes
Pilsen. Production was halted and the factory was vacated in 1991 (Köksal, 2005). In
2010, a new hotel project was launched on the industrial building and its building land,
which were included in the scope of the cultural heritage required to be conserved with
the article of the Official Gazette No. 23227 in 1998. The building has been used as an
entertainment and cultural-art center since 2015.

The idle sites of the factory that are located in Map Section No. 167, City
Block No. 1548, and Parcels No. 9 and 10 and owned by the Treasury (the Old Malt
Building, the Old Silo, the Old Barley Cleaning Building, and the Old Boiler Room)
were transferred to the Department of Religious Affairs. The project prepared by the
Department concerning this site, which houses registered buildings, and including “a
masjid, a dormitory, an exhibition hall, and a multi-storey car park” was adopted and the
dismantling and demolition of the immovables concerned were allowed too (Doğan,
2019).

F. Tophane-i Amire (Imperial Cannon Foundry) (Beyoğlu, İstanbul, the 15th-
19th Centuries): Tophane-i Amire was the weapon production center of the Ottoman
Empire. In the Ottomans, cannonball casting was maximized in the reign of Sultan
Suleiman the Magnificent; some of the cannon foundry buildings were demolished;
the foundries were extended; and artillery barracks were constructed on the seashore.
Produced at the small workshops until the end of the 18th century, the Ottoman rifles
and pistols were developed under the impacts of the Industrial Revolution in the West
after this period.

Innovation and industrialization initiatives were launched, with the primary one
being the factory added to Tophane. In the same period, Zeytinburnu Weapon Factory
was also developed; cannonballs began to be cast here; and the crude cannonballs cast
were taken to Tophane and processed there. As the center for the Ottoman weapon
industry, Tophane had maintained its importance until the foundation of the new
Republic of Turkey. Upon the fact that Ankara became the capital after the foundation
of the Republic, the Turkish weapon industry began to develop in Ankara. Likewise,
the foundations for the factories in Ankara were built by moving the machines and
workbenches of the factories in İstanbul, particularly of Tophane-i Amire, to Ankara.

However, of the facilities of Tophane-i Amire, only two foundry buildings and
the building known as Tophane Pavilion have survived to date. The artillery barracks on
the shore were replaced by the warehouses of Denizcilik Bankası (Maritime Bank). The
building given to Mimar Sinan University in 1992 by the Ministry of National Defense was
restored and subjected to adaptive reuse as the Cultural and Art Center of Mimar Sinan
University (Kariptaş, 2010).

75

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Today the buildings for cannonball casting are being used by Mimar Sinan
University. The adaptive reuse of the buildings, whose survey studies were completed by
the Division of Restoration in the Faculty of Architecture at Mimar Sinan University, came
up on the agenda and project studies were launched to this end. The consideration taken
into account in the adaptive reuse of the large building for cannonball casting was the
production of a solution that would enable one to perceive the interior space without
being divided and at a single time. Surface improving plastic restorations and cleaning
studies were carried out particularly on the wall surfaces of the interior space. The group
of buildings concerned have now been subjected to adaptive reuse as “the Cultural and Art
Center of Mimar Sinan University” (Ceylan, 2003: 55).

Photo 10. The building of Tophane-i Amire, the 1970s Photo 11. The building of Tophane-i Amire, 2017

Source: http://www.sabancivakfi.org/tr Source: The photograph was taken by L. İncedere.

G. Lengerhane (Anchor House) (Hasköy, İstanbul, 1861-1980): Constructed
on the Byzantine foundations remaining from the 12th century in the reign of Ahmed
I (1703-1730), Lengerhane once served as a foundry for the Ottoman fleet and was used
for the maintenance and repair of the steamships. Since the chain thrown into the sea to
immobilize a ship at sea and the anchor at the tip of this chain were called a ‘lenger’ and
the place where they were manufactured was called a “lengerhane” in the Ottoman Period,
the building was referred to with this name. Reminding one of a Byzantine church or of
a mosque at first sight, the brick-colored Lengerhane building is evaluated as a 2nd-class
historic work today by the Higher Council for Monuments (Çelebi, 2001).

As the old or ruined area in the region began to be cleaned, Lengerhane also
attracted the attention of industrial archaeologists in terms of both its location and
historical and cultural value.

Lengerhane was used in various ways in the Byzantine (the 12th century) and
Ottoman (until the 18th century) periods and its roof was severely damaged during a fire
that broke out in 1990. These old industrial buildings and their site had remained derelict
until they were purchased in 1996 by “Rahmi M. Koç Museum and Cultural Foundation”
(Edis, 2004: 591). Hasköy Shipyard was purchased from Denizcilik İşletmeleri in 1996
by Rahmi M. Koç Museum Studies and Cultural Foundation and old Lengerhane was

76

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 12. Pre-restoration Lengerhane Buildings
Source: Bayır, 2014

Photo 13. Rahmi Koç Museum, 2017.
Source: The photographs were taken by L. İncedere.

organized as a museum area. Koç Museum is at a perfect location on the Golden Horn –
the historic shipbuilding and industrial zone of İstanbul.

Rahmi M. Koç Museum has two historic buildings on the shore of the Golden
Horn, with one being Lengerhane and the other being Hasköy Shipyard.  All available
structures in Lengerhane Building were combined with a cellar and provided with a
function as a museum. The periods experienced by the building give us an idea about
its function. The ramp and staircase systems which had been unavailable in the original
building but were constructed in line with the needs are striking (Bayır, 2014). The second
part of the museum was opened in 2001.

H. Kasımpaşa Salt Warehouse (Kasımpaşa, İstanbul, 1849-1956): Kasımpaşa
Salt Warehouse and Kasımpaşa Mill are located on the same city block as that of the
flour warehouses and granaries existing since the 18th century in the east of Kasımpaşa
Pier in the south of Kalyoncular Barracks. They were probably constructed to serve the
Shipyard zone. Constructed by using natural stone, the Salt Warehouse is made up of the
combination of two buildings. This single-storey building was used as the wheat granary
of the mill known as Plytas Flour Factory for a long while and the building maintained

77

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

its function as a salt warehouse in the following years. Registered as a second-degree
historic work, the building was probably constructed to serve the shipyard zone. The Salt
Warehouse building within the scope of industrial heritage has not been used since the
1980s. It has been unoccupied for a long while, which has accelerated the deterioration
process of the building (Kariptaş, 2010).

As the 170-year-old Salt Warehouse, which was used as a depot belonging to
TEKEL in the industrial zone of İstanbul affiliated to the port in the period when it was
constructed, was hired by Medina-Turgul DDB, the comprehensive restoration and
transformation projects of the building were prepared in 2008. Redesigned with glass and
steel constructions by preserving all of its architectural qualities and transformed into an
advertising agency, the building was awarded the award of the best old/new building of
the world during the World Architecture Festival held in Barcelona (http://www.ddb.com.
tr/tr/hakkimizda/tuzambari).

Photo 14. Pre- (right) and post-restoration (left) Kasımpaşa Salt Warehouse
Source: Kariptaş, 2010

Merinos Textile Factory (Bursa, 1938-2004): Between 1934 and 1939, Sümerbank
established Kayseri Cloth Factory, Ereğli Cloth Factory (Konya), Nazilli Printed Cloth
Factory, and Malatya Cloth Factory (together with İş Bankası and Ziraat Bankası) in order
to produce cotton cloth; Merinos Factory in Bursa in order to produce combed wool yarn
(worsted) and cotton cloth; and Gemlik Artificial Silk Factory in order to produce artificial
silk (Eren and Tuna, 2018: 167). The factory put into service in Bursa in 1938 became one
of the most important textile factories of Turkey. It was privatized and its production was
halted in 2004 by the Privatization Administration of the Republic of Turkey. The land of
the institution and the immovables on it were allocated to Bursa Metropolitan Municipality.

Nevertheless, these immovables were destroyed by the fire that broke out in 2006.
The facility was transformed into a cultural park in 2007 and into a museum of textile
industry in 2011. The power plant building that provided Merinos Textile Factory and
some areas of Bursa with electricity and that had an area of 3,200 square meters was
transformed into Merinos Energy Museum with the arrangements performed. The
museum was opened on 7 September 2012 (http://tekstilmuzesi.bursa.bel.tr/). Today it
continues to be used actively for various activities.

78

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Photo 15. Views from Merinos Textile Factory (right) and the power plant (left)
Source: http://bursamerinosenerjimuzesi.com

SEKA Paper Factory (Kocaeli, 1936-2005): SEKA, whose foundation was laid on
a land of 121,864 square meters by İsmet İnönü and which was the first paper factory of
Turkey, began to operate on 6 November 1936. Upon the increase in consumption and
the arising of the need for new paper and cellulose factories, this first paper factory, which
tried to satisfy the need of the country with the products it produced in the periods of
depression caused by the years of the Second World War, became the leading establishment
in the commencement of operation of these factories (Yurtoğlu, 2017). However, the
factory failed to keep up with the technological progress in the following years and had to
halt its production.

Besides being an example of the achievements in the fields of industry and
development, SEKA Paper Factory is also important with the profound change it created
around itself in the social and cultural lives when it is evaluated within the scope of
industrial heritage. The arrangements which commenced in the early years of the
establishment of the factory showed their impacts among the employees at the factory
and in the urban life of İzmit in the following years (Muşkara and Tunçeli, 2019: 250). The
factory and its lands were transferred to Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipality in 2005. With
the arrangements made, SEKA was transformed into Mehmet Ali Kâğıtçı Paper Museum.
Machines, the documentaries and videos telling the history of SEKA, sculptures produced
from paper and recycling, documents of the factory and printing machines are exhibited

Photo 16. Views from SEKA Factory
Source: http://sekakagitmuzesi.com/

79

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

in this museum, which qualifies as the first paper museum of Turkey and as the largest
paper museum of the world.

Apart from the examples of the use of these main industrial heritage buildings
in Turkey, Haliç (Golden Horn) Shipyard, Beykoz Shoe Factory, Hasan Paşa Gasworks,
Paşalimanı Flour Factory, Unkapanı Flour Factory, Cendere Water Pumping Station,
Kuzguncuk Gasworks, Nakkaştepe Gasworks, and Yıldız Palace Porcelain Factory, located
in İstanbul and being only at the projecting stage, as well as Azmi National Flour Factory
in Aksaray, which is in the process of being transformed into a museum of science and
industry, Zonguldak Mining Museum, which qualifies as the first mining museum of
Turkey, and the section of industrial machines that will make up part of the museum
designed as the largest archaeology museum of Turkey in Adana are some of the projects
which are expected to be completed and which are important in the process of conserving
the industrial heritage and reintroducing it into the city.

The industrial facilities which are not subject to any adaptive reuse process and
which are idle among the old industrial sites in our country are considerably numerous
and the buildings with a considerably significant place in terms of industrial heritage
such as Küçükçekmece Match Factory, Kasımpaşa Flour Factory, Yedikule Gasworks,
Dolmabahçe Gasworks, İzmit Broadcloth Mill and Fez Factory, Adana National Textile
Factory and Cumhuriyet Flour and Cotton Gin Factory, and the old khans and depots in
the hinterland, the Power Plant, the Water Factory, Halkapınar Wine Factory, Sümerbank
Printed Cloth Factory, and the production and depot areas of TEKEL in İzmir should be
restored by providing the necessary sources without delay and maintained regularly.

Afterword

Industrial heritage has become a striking field of study for many disciplines
particularly recently. The studies published on industrial heritage mostly by
architects and engineers as well as, although few, by historians and archaeologists
have placed emphasis on the restoration of buildings, the examination of objects,
the elaboration of dates, and the technical issues, thereby causing one to focus on
them. In spite of the fields of research directly associated with the issue in the field
of the social sciences, particularly in the disciplines of anthropology, sociology,
and geography, studies have been carried out at a very limited level. Thus, it gets
difficult to understand the considerations about place identity, participation of the
local people, and the memory relationship formed with industrial heritage sites and
buildings.

The failure to conserve those old industrial sites and production elements which
are located in the city and which have integrated with the society and lived with it for years
by taking the necessary measures and remaining insensitive to their disappearance by
demolishing or disregarding them cause cities to become more and more standardized and
to lose their subjectivity with every passing day. There is no doubt that it is a rather difficult

80

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

action to comprehend the psychological, socio-economic, and political parameters which
lead to the loss of identity in cities and to conserve the urban pattern and originality by
raising public awareness of them. However, if no effort is made for this purpose, it will be
inevitable that cities which are deprived of an identity and which go on growing with the
meaning gaps they create will occur.

The concept of industrial heritage, which began to flourish in the 1990s, and
especially the studies carried out with respect to the adaptive reuse of the early industrial
sites in Europe began to come up on the agenda for the old industrial sites in Turkey
too. Nevertheless, since practices were started without adequately basing the grounds
for conservation and the concept of industrial heritage in the adaptive reuse studies
performed, it was failed to conduct a process which was as sound as desired.

The conservation and adaptive reuse of the industrial heritage by adhering to
the necessary legal procedures mostly get more difficult for these sites of the city with
important rents. Additionally, as seen in many examples in our country, the fact that an old
industrial site had been registered as a cultural property, its legal conservation and the fact
that attention was drawn to it by nongovernmental organizations mostly could not prevent
that building from being destroyed before undergoing any restoration. A current example
which quite fits this situation is Maltepe (Ankara) Gasworks, which was demolished
in 2006. Established in 1929, the facility was one of the most original examples of its
time and its production was terminated in the 1990s, as in many facilities. The building
was registered as an immovable cultural property in 1991 by Ankara Committee on the
Conservation of Cultural and Natural Properties; it was taken under legal conservation
for the superior public interest in 1996; and it was intended to prevent its demolition by
the nongovernmental organizations. However, all the above-mentioned failed to stop the
launching of the demolition of Maltepe Gasworks on 20.05.2016 – about one month after
lifting its conservation registration. This example explicitly shows us that the failure of
the society to have the necessary awareness of these sites and bureaucratic obstacles are
considerably important in the conservation of old industrial buildings.

The level of consciousness we encounter when we examine the social media
databases on these sites, which have become dilapidated in the city over time, is rather
thought-provoking. At this point, a great duty falls to local governments and university
institutions. Bonds should be formed among these institutions at the local and national
levels and the bureaucratic obstacles to conservation and adaptive reuse should be fought
in this way. The awareness-raising studies to be carried out regarding the fact that old
industrial sites are not dilapidated and worthless buildings which have remained in the dark
in the city are essential in terms of conservation. To raise awareness of industrial heritage
sites and to draw attention to these sites, the project of mapping the industrial heritage
sites in İstanbul is an important step in this sense. Making such studies widespread in all
provinces will play a driving role in the senses of both archiving the industrial heritage and
the materialization of new projects for our country.

81

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Industrial heritage, which has begun to attract attention in Turkey only for the
last twenty years, is generally regarded merely as an economic source and its social and
cultural values are disregarded. The situation is also the same for İzmir – an important city
of trade and industry. As also seen at many old industrial sites that have been subjected
to adaptive reuse within the urban pattern of İzmir, only the exterior structure of the
facility has been preserved, but most of its production units, which are as important for
the memory of production and labor as the building itself, have been dismantled from the
facility and destroyed. Even though some important industrial units are particularly taken
under conservation and exhibited in the important museums in İstanbul, their exhibition
at their original sites is considerably essential to understand the building integrity.

While even the studies on the determination and conservation of the industrial
heritage sites within the urban pattern of İzmir are so limited, it seems rather difficult
to evaluate the importance the people of İzmir attach to the development of industrial
heritage and their awareness. Thus, great research is required to make case study analyses
in certain contexts and therefore to cast light on the matter. In the study, which was
prepared considering this requirement, it was discovered that there were serious problems
at the stages of conservation and planning of the industrial heritage in İzmir. The number
of restored and actively used buildings is very small in the city and these buildings have
generally been subjected to adaptive reuse only by conserving the outline of the buildings.
No information on the previous use of the buildings or no heritage element which reflected
their former use was provided. Even the Gasworks, which is most actively used in the city
and regarded as the most beautiful example of industrial heritage, contains significant
shortcomings at these points.

82

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

References Cengizkan, A. (2001). Türkiye’de Fabrika Ve İşçi
Konutları: İstanbul Silahtarağa Elektrik Santrali.
Alfrey, J. and Putnam, T. (1992) The Industrial ODTÜ MFD 2000 (20:1-2), s: 29-55. (Cengizkan, A.
Heritage: Managing Resources and Uses. Routledge. (2001). A Factory and Workers’ Houses in Turkey:
London. Silahtarağa Power Plant in İstanbul. ODTÜ (METU)
MFD 2000 (20:1-2), p: 29-55.)
Avcı, S. (2019). Neoliberalizm Ve Kültür Endüstrisi
Ekseninde Dönüşen Bir Endüstri Mirası: Bomonti Cengizkan, A., (2006). İstanbul Silahtarağa Elektrik
Bira Fabrikası. Siyaset Bilimi Ve Kamu Yönetimi Santrali Türkiye’de Fabrika ve İşçi Konutları.
Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul. (Avcı, Dosya 3, Sayı: 45, 14-19. (Cengizkan, A., (2006).
S. (2019). Industrial Heritage transforming in line Silahtarağa Power Plant in İstanbul, A Factory and
with Neoliberalism and Cultural Industry: Bomonti Workers’ Houses in Turkey. File 3, Issue: 45, 14-19.)
Brewery. A Master’s Thesis in the Division of Political
Science and Public Administration. İstanbul.) Cengizkan, M. (2006). Endüstri Yapılarında Yeniden
İşlevlendirme: İşi Biten Endüstri Yapıları Ne İşe
Ayık, U. ve Avcı, S. (2018). İstanbul’da Yarar?, Dosya 03. Sayı: 45, 9-14. (Cengizkan, M.
Sanayisizleşme: Coğrafi Bir Bakış. Akademik (2006). Adaptive Reuse in Industrial Buildings:
Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Yıl: 6, Sayı: 65, Şubat What Benefit do those Industrial Buildings that have
2018, s. 505-523. (Ayık, U. and Avcı, S. (2018). finished their service provide?, File 03. Issue: 45,
Deindustrialization in İstanbul: A Geographical View. 9-14.)
Journal of Academic Social Studies, Year: 6, Issue:
65, February 2018, p. 505-523.) Cengizkan, M., (2007). İstanbul (Kent) Müzesi
Projesi ve Darphane-i Amire. Mimarlık Dergisi.
Bandarin, F. (2016). New Approaches and New Tools Sayı: 335. (Cengizkan, M., (2007). İstanbul (City)
for Urban Conservation. İdeal Kent. Sayı 19. Cilt 7, ss: Museum Project and Darphane-i Amire. Journal of
341-346. (Bandarin, F. (2016). New Approaches and Architecture. Issue: 335.)
New Tools for Urban Conservation. İdeal Kent. Issue 19.
Volume 7, pp: 341-346.) Ceylan, O. (2003). Top Döküm Binalar› (Tophane-i
Amire) ve Onarımları. Tasarım kuram. Say› 3, May›s.
Bandarin, F. and Oers. R, O. 2012. The Historic Urban 43-56. (Ceylan, O. (2003). Buildings for Cannonball
Landscape Managing heritage in an urban century. A Casting (Tophane-i Amire) and their Restorations.
John Wiley & Sons Publication. Design theory. Issue 3, May. 43-56.)

Bayır, S. (2014). Endüstriyel Yapıların Yeniden Cho, M. and Shin, S., (2014). Conservation or
İşlevlendirilmesi ve Rahmi Koç Müzesi Örneği. Economization? Industrial Heritage Conservation in
Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Haliç Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Incheon, Korea. Habitat International. Vol. 41, p. 69-
Enstitüsü İç Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı. İstanbul. 76.
(Bayır, S. (2014). Adaptive Reuse of Industrial
Buildings and a Case Study of Rahmi Koç Museum. Cravatte, H., (1977). Introduction. In: Historic Town
Master’s Thesis. Division of Interior Architecture, Centres in the Development of Present Day Towns.
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Haliç University. İstanbul.)
Del Pozo, B and Gonzalez, P. A. (2012). Industrial
Binney, M., Machin, F., Powell,. (1990) Bright Heritage and Place Identity in Spain: From
Future: Re-use of Industrial Buildings Save Britain’s Monuments to Landscapes. The Geographical
Heritage England. Review. Vol. 102(4), p.446-464.

Castello, L. (2006), City & Time and Places Bridging Demir, C. (2006). Kent Kimliği Geliștirme Sürecinde
the Concept of Place to Urban Conservation Planning. Mekânsal Model Tasarımı ve Kent Plancılarının Rolü.
City & Time 2 (1): 5. Planlama Dergisi. Sayı: 3, 117-122. (Demir, C. (2006).
Spatial Model Design and the Role of City Planners in
Çelebi, E. (2001). Türkiye’nin ilk sanayi müzesi: the Process of Developing an Urban Identity. Journal
Rahmi Koç Müzesi. Sky life. Ağustos. ss: 33-44 of Planning. Issue: 3, 117-122.)
(Çelebi, E. (2001). The first museum of industry in
Turkey: Rahmi Koç Museum. Skylife. August. pp:
33-44.)

83

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Doğan, R. (2019). Bomonti Bira Fabrikası’nın Karadağ, A. (2000). Kentsel gelişim süreci, çevresel
binaları Diyanet’e devredildi. Artıgerçek. 16 Kasım etkileri ve sorunları ile İzmir. Nadir Kitap. Ankara.
2019. (Doğan, R. (2019). The buildings of Bomonti (Karadağ, A. (2000). İzmir with its urban development
Brewery were transferred to the Department of process, environmental impacts, and problems. Nadir
Religious Affairs. Artıgerçek. 16 November 2019.) Kitap. Ankara.)

Douet, J. 2013. Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The Karadağ, A. ve İncedere, L. (2017). “Türkiye’de
Ticcih Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation. Endüstri Mirasının Korunması” (Ed. Ferhat Aslan).
Taylor and Francis Publishing. Türkiye Coğrafya Araştırmaları İçinde (13-42). Pegem
Akademi. Ankara (Karadağ, A. and İncedere, L. (2017).
Edensor, T. (2005) Industrial Ruins: Aesthetics, “Conservation of Industrial Heritage in Turkey” (Ed.
Materiality and Memory. Oxford: Berg. Ferhat Aslan). In the Turkish Geographical Studies
(13-42). Pegem Akademi. Ankara)
Edis, T. (2004). The Rahmi M. Koc Museum, Istanbul.
Technology and Culture. Vol. 45 (3). p: 590-596. Kariptaş, F. (2010). Endüstri Mirası Kapsamındaki
Yapıların Günümüz Şartlarında Değerlendirilmesi ve
Eren, A. ve Tuna, S. (2018). Ankara Üniversitesi Türk Kasımpaşa Tuz Ambarı Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi Sayı: Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri
63, Güz, s. 165-202 (Eren, A. and Tuna, S. (2018). Enstitüsü. İstanbul. (Kariptaş, F. (2010). Evaluating the
Journal of Atatürk’s Way, Graduate School of Turkish Buildings within the Scope of Industrial Heritage under
Revolutionary History at Ankara University, Issue: Current Conditions and a Case Study of Kasımpaşa
63, Fall, p. 165-202) Salt Warehouse. Master’s Thesis. Graduate School of
Natural and Applied Sciences at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
Göregenli, M. (2015). Çevre Psikolojisi, İnsan University. İstanbul.)
Mekân İlişkileri. (3. Baskı). İstanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları. İstanbul. (Göregenli, M. Kaya, B., (2012). Endüstri Mirasımızın Korunmasında
2015. Environmental Psychology, Human-Space Planlama Yaklaşımı, Uzmanlık Tezi. Kültür ve Turizm
Relationships. (3rd Edition). Publications by İstanbul Bakanlığı. İzmir. (Kaya, B., (2012). A Planning
Bilgi University. İstanbul.) Approach in the Conservation of Our Industrial
Heritage, Specialization Thesis. Ministry of Culture
Halewood, C. and Hannam, K. (2001) Viking heritage and Tourism. İzmir.)
tourism: Authenticity and commodification. Annals
of Tourism Research 28 (3), 565–580. Kayın, E. (2001). İzmir’de Tarihi Mekânlar ve
Kentliler Arasında Yeniden Kurgulanan İlişkiler. İzmir
Harvey, D. (2012). Asi Şehirler. Metis Yayınları. Kent Kültürü Dergisi. Sayı: 3, ss: 66-71. (Kayın, E.
İstanbul. (Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities. Metis 2001. Reconstructed Relationships between Historic
Publications. İstanbul.) Spaces and City Dwellers in İzmir. Journal of İzmir
Urban Culture. Issue: 3, pp: 66-71.)
Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry. Methuen
Publishing. London. Kayın, E. ve Şimşek, E. (2009). İzmir Havagazı
Fabrikası Endüstri Kompleksi Üzerine Yeniden
ICOMOS – TICCIH, 2011. Joint ICOMOS – TICCIH Düşünmek, Ege Mimarlık Dergisi. Sayı: 70, 14-19.
Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage (Kayın, E. and Şimşek, E. (2009). Rethinking the
Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes. https://www. Industrial Complex of İzmir Gasworks, the Journal Ege
icomos.org/Paris2011/GA2011_ICOMOS_TICCIH_ Mimarlık. Issue: 70, 14-19.)
joint_principles_EN_FR_final_20120110.pdf
Kayın, E. (2013). Endüstri Mirasına Yönelik Koruma
Icomos Türkiye Mimari Mirası Koruma Bildirgesi, Müdahalelerini Değerlendirme Ölçütleri ve Terkos
(2013).12Nisan2016tarihindehttp://www.icomos.org. Pompa İstasyonu. Mimarlık Dergisi, 370. (Kayın,
tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_0623153001387886624. E. 2013. Criteria for Assessing the Conservation
pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır. (the Charter for the Interventions in the Industrial Heritage and Terkos
Conservation of the Architectural Heritage of Pump Station. Journal of Architecture, 370.)
Turkey by Icomos Turkey (2013). Accessed on 12
April 2016 at http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ Köksal, G. (2000). Yeniden Hayat Bulan Endüstri
ICOMOSTR_0623153001387886624.pdf.) Yapıları, ARKİV. Sayı: 8, 68-71. (Köksal, G. (2000).
Revived Industrial Buildings, ARKİV, Issue:8, 68-71.)

84

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Köksal, G. (2005). İstanbul’daki Endüstri Mirası İçin B., Demir, K. (2016). State Factories established in
Koruma ve Yeniden Kullanım Önerileri, Doktora the Ottoman Industrialization Process in the 19th
Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul. (Köksal, Century: An Inventory Study. OTAM, 40 /Fall 2016,
G. (2005). Conservation and Reuse Proposals for the 245-277.)
Industrial Heritage in İstanbul, Doctoral Dissertation,
İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul.) Nikoliç, I. (2014). Urban Recycling of Derelict
Industrial Sites: Analysis of Socio-Economic
Köksal, G. (2005). İstanbul’daki Endüstri Mirası İçin Redevelopment of Post-Industrial Districts,
Koruma ve Yeniden Kullanım Önerileri, İTÜ Fen Universitat Politecnica De Catalunya.
Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Doktora Tezi). İstanbul. (Köksal,
G. (2005). Conservation and Reuse Proposals for Nizhny Tagil, (2003). 02. Ocak, 2016 tarihinde
the Industrial Heritage in İstanbul, Graduate School (Nizhny Tagil, (2003). On 02 January 2016)
of Natural and Applied Sciences at ITU (Doctoral
Dissertation). İstanbul.) Oeverman, H. and Mieg, H. (2015). Industrial
Heritage Sites in Transformation, Routledge
Köksal, G. (2008) “Industrial Heritage in İstanbul”, Publication, New York.
TICCIH Bulletin, sayı: 41, s. 6-7, İspanya (http://
www.ticcih.org/docs/1225208975_b41.pdf). (Köksal, Punter, J. (2002). The Welsh Development Agency
G. (2008) “Industrial Heritage in İstanbul”, TICCIH Desing Guide- Its Role in Raising Standards in Wales-
Bulletin, Issue: 41, p. 6-7, Spain (http://www.ticcih. Welsh Development Agency, Cardiff.
org/docs/1225208975_b41.pdf).)
Regional Strategies for Industrial Areas, (2013).
Köksal, G. (2013), “Kentsel Koruma ve Yenileme 16. Mart, 2016 tarihinde (Regional Strategies for
Bağlamında Sanayi Mirası: Bir Kamu Projesi Industrial Areas, (2013). On 16 March 2016)
Olarak Seka Fabrikası Örneği”, Prof. Dr. Nur Akın’a
Armağan Mimari ve Kentsel Koruma, YEM Yayın, Roberts, P. and Sykes, H. (2000). The Evolution
s. 399-412, İstanbul. (Köksal, G. 2013, “Industrial Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. Urban
Heritage in the Context of Urban Conservation and Regeneration a Hand Book, ed. Roberts vd., Sage
Renovation: A Case Study of Seka Factory as a Public Publications, Page:8-34, London.
Project”, in honor of Prof. Dr. Nur Akın, Architectural
and Urban Conservation, YEM Publication, p. 399- Rojas, E. (1999). Old Cities, New Assets: Preserving
412, İstanbul.) Latin America’s Urban Heritage. Inter-American
Development Bank. Washington
Köksal, G., (2015) “Kazıklı Kervansarayı Duvar
Restorasyonu ve İç Ek Yapısı”, VİTRA Kültür Romeo, E., Morezz, E., Rudiero, R., (2015). Industrial
Yapıları, VİTRA Yayını, İstanbul, s. 102-107. Heritage: Reflections on The Use Compatibility of
(Köksal, G., (2015) “Wall Restoration of Kazıklı Cultural Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. Energy
Caravansary and its Additional Interior Structure”, Procedia. Volume: 78, 1305-1310.
VİTRA Cultural Buildings, VİTRA Publication,
İstanbul, p. 102-107.) Sağlam, N. (2017). Bir Semte Adını Veren Bomonti
Bira Fabrikası. Uluslararası Tarih Araştırmaları
Kuban, D,. (2009). Türkiye’de Kentsel Koruma: Dergisi (UTAD) Aralık / Sayı: 1, ss: 26-56 (Sağlam,
Kent Tarihleri ve Koruma Yöntemleri, Tarih Vakfı N. (2017). Bomonti Brewery, which gave its Name to
Yurt Yayınları. İstanbul. (Kuban, D,. (2009). Urban a Quarter. Journal of International Historical Research
Conservation in Turkey: Urban Histories and (UTAD) December / Issue: 1, pp: 26-56)
Conservation Methods, Yurt Publications by the
Foundation of History, İstanbul.) Şengül, R., ve Tanyeli, G. (2017). Darphane-İ Amire’nin
Demir Üst Örtü Sistemlerinin İki Yapı Üzerinden
Küçükerman, Ö., (1995). Feshane. Skylıfe, Sayı: İncelenmesi Ve Koruma Önerileri. Uluslararası Katılımlı
5/95, 44-50, (Küçükerman, Ö., (1995). Feshane (Fez 6. Tarihi Yapıların Korunması ve Güçlendirilmesi
Factory). Skylife, Issue: 5/95, 44-50.) Sempozyumu / 2-3-4 Kasım 2017 (Şengül, R., and
Tanyeli, G. (2017). Examining the Iron Roof Systems of
Kurt. M. Kuzucu, K., Çakır, B. Demir, K. (2016). 19. Darphane-i Amire via Two Buildings and Conservation
Yüzyılda Osmanlı Sanayileşmesi Sürecinde Kurulan Proposals. The 6th Symposium on the Conservation and
Devlet Fabrikaları: Bir Envanter Çalışması. OTAM, Reinforcement of Historic Buildings with International
40 /Güz 2016, 245-277. (Kurt. M., Kuzucu, K., Çakır, Participation / 2-3-4 November 2017)

85

A Rising Asset of Cities - Industrial Heritage Arife KARADAĞ - Leman İNCEDERE

Smith, N. (2001). Heritage of Industry: Discovering http://www.feshane.com.tr/tr (05.08.2016)
New Zealand’s Industrial History. Raupo Publishing.
http://www.santralistanbul.org/pages/index/about/tr/
Smith, N. ve Williams, P. (2015). Kentin (12.08.2016)
Mutenalaştırılması. (çev. Melike Uzun). Yordam
Kitap. İstanbul. (Smith, N. and Williams, P. (2015). https://kentstratejileri.com/tag/turyag/ 02.03.2018
Gentrification of the City. (Translated by Melike
Uzun). Yordam Kitap. İstanbul.) https://www.rhm.org.tr/tutun-fabrikasi/ (16.08.2016)

Sutton, S and Kemp, S. 2011. Introduction: Place
as Marginality and Possibility. In the book “The
Paradox of Urban Space” (Ed. Sutton, S and Kemp,
S.) Palgrave Macmillan: United States.

Wicke, C., Berger, S., Golombek, J. (2018). Industrial
Heritage and Regional Identities. Routledge. London.

Xie, P., F., (2015). Industrial Heritage Tourism.
Channel View Publications.

Yiğit, E. (2010). “Emek Tarihinden Kente Bakmak:
Bomonti ve Bira Fabrikası”, Mimar Sinan Güzel
Sanatlar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü,
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul. (Yiğit,
E. (2010). “Looking at the City from the History of
Labor: Bomonti and the Brewery”, Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Natural
and Applied Sciences at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
University. İstanbul.)

Yurtoğlu, N. (2017). Cumhuriyet Döneminin Öncü Bir
Sanayi Kuruluşu: İzmit Selüloz ve Kâğıt Fabrikaları
Müessesesi (1936-1960) . Ankara Üniversitesi Türk
İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi Sayı:
60, Bahar, S. 341-372 (Yurtoğlu, N. (2017). A Leading
Industrial Establishment of the Republican Period:
İzmit Selüloz ve Kâğıt Fabrikaları Müessesesi (1936-
1960). Journal of Atatürk’s Way by the Graduate
School of Turkish Revolutionary History at Ankara
University, Issue: 60, Spring, P. 341-372).

http://bursamerinosenerjimuzesi.com/ (12.09.2016)

http://conceptteam.org/istanbul/ (19.08.2016)

http://sekakagitmuzesi.com/ (30.12.2016)

http://tekstilmuzesi.bursa.bel.tr/ (10.09.2016)

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list (02.04.2016)

http://www.aktuelarkeoloji.com.tr/rezan-has-muzesi
(02.08.2016)

http://www.ddb.com.tr/tr/hakkimizda/tuzambari
(01.09.2016)

86

DETERMINATIONS ON THE EFFECT
OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE ON
SETTLEMENT NAMES IN TURKEY

Cihan ÖZGÜN 1

Abstract

Industry has a significant impact not only on the social and economic life of a
society, but also in its physical environment. Industrial areas or industrial spaces affect
both social memory and urban identity directly or indirectly in a settlement. This effect
sometimes appears in the form of place names by associating the living space of the
society with the industry. For example, when some settlement names are examined in
Turkey such as Kömürköy, Barutçuköy, Demirci, Kurşunlu, Pirinççi, Bıçakçı, Eğerci,
it is understood that these places are named after industrial business fields or industrial
occupations.

This study aims to examine the role of places where industrialization experience
takes place in Turkey in the construction of urban identity through place names. In
addition, the study will examine examples of how far industrial heritage-based place
names go back in history and determine their relationship to urban identity.

1   Assoc. Prof., Ege University History Department.

e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-8337-5876

87

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

Introduction

Settlement names are designated depending on the natural, economic, social and
cultural characteristics of a particular location. These names enable a union with the
inhabited environment, and a differentiation of it from others (Yavuz 2013, 2239). The
science that has as its subject of settlement names is called toponymy. The word toponymy
consists of two root words of “topos” meaning “place” and “onim” meaning “name” in
Greek. It is possible to refer the term toponymy as “toponomastics”, “microtoponomastics”,
“toponymics” and “toponomika” (Yavuz 2013, 2241). Toponymy gives important historical
knowledge about the first settlers, the past of the settlement, and distribution of population.
Toponymic investigations provide a clue to the religious changes, the culture of the
inhabitants, its institutions, and communal life of the region in question. In this context, it
is possible to gather knowledge about the social and cultural structure, including historical
backgrounds of settlements through an analysis of these names (Özçelik 2018, 93).

Settlement names, therefore, is of essential importance when getting acquainted
with the history, common characteristics and ethnicity of a geographical region (İbret
2003, 53). Furthermore, these names provide a clue to the history of the language and the
settlement of the geographic environment to which they were designated (Özcan 2018,
147). Settlement names are proofs of how geographic environments were established as
homelands as well. In this respect, the study of toponymy is concerned with all disciplines,
especially with linguistics, geography, history, archeology, ethnology, anthropology,
sociology, ethnography (Yavuz 2013, 2242).

These names reflect the traces of humanity and civilization; indeed, they show
how societies become one with a geographic environment (Özcan 2018, p. 146 and
Tunçel 2000, 24). There is a mutual relationship between a settlement and a society.
Society constructs the settlement, shapes it and forms a sense of belonging corresponding
with it (Doğan 2019, 1).

It is made possible to differentiate a settlement from any other on earth by means
of the nomenclature of places or geographic environments. Nomenclature provides an
identity to the settlements and objects (Aliağaoğlu, Uzun 2011, 124). Altering the names of
geographic environments, therefore, causes the political as well as the cultural heritage and
ethnicity that are tied to a settlement by name to be erased or forgotten (Doğan 2019, 5).

Settlement Names Influenced by Turkish Culture

Settlement names are the most prominent hallmarks signifying the Turkish society’s
union with the land (Özcan 2018,148). Numerous historians and linguists, Fuat Köprülü in
particular, evaluated the settlement names in terms of their historical importance found in
Anatolia. The nomenclature of inhabited settlements in Anatolia predominantly has their
basis in the words related to nature, physical circumstances, environment, vegetation,
occupations, names of people, titles as ranks and religion (Özçelik 2018, 94).

88

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, names of numerous settlements in
Anatolia were systematically altered; the settlement names descending from Byzantine
replaced with Turkish names, thus they were Turkified (Doğan 2019, 62). The Turks,
having conquered Anatolia, named the cities, the towns, the landforms such as lakes,
rivers, mountains which are found in the vicinity befitting the Turkish tradition (Özcan
2018, 146). These names became a complementary element on account of historicity to
the cities, neighborhoods, or districts with which they were associated (Hut 2005, 160).

The settlements weren’t haphazardly named, indeed the Turks who settled in
Anatolia designated suitable names through which the nature gained an identity and a
character. That is also a sign of the close relationship between man and nature (Kurgun
1997, 103). In this respect, it is understood that the Turks who became the settlers of
Anatolia named their villages having paid attention to the physical features of the region
as well as its social and economic properties (İbret 2003, 53).

The names of settlements for the most part are concepts that reflect the geographical
features of a region and enables people to acquire information about a particular region
with relative ease (Deniz 2013, 192). These names show how the community perceives
the geographic space it inhabits (Yavuz 2013, 2242). Settlement names in Turkish are
for the most part informative about the characteristics of a place. This is the reason why
recurring names are encountered in various districts of Turkey. For instance: Ağ Pınar,
Bahçecik, Bahçeli, Beş Pınar, Çamurlu, Çift Depesi, Değirmenli, Depe Kendi, Depelu,
Kamışlı, Panbuklu Depesi, Söğütlü (İlhan 1990, 220).

The Turks has given a name to almost every river and every hill. It is understood
that even a tree or a stone may have been specifically named. The fact that these names
are found in a large variety is most probably due to the lack of possibility to access the
settlements by means of a wheeled vehicle, or the possibility to access everywhere by
foot (Arıkan 1985, 78). In the light of the examination of the village names found in
Anatolia, it is understood that while naming their settlement areas the Turks make use
of the environment first, then of the features that belong to humans (Aksan 1974, 190).
In this respect, the Turks inspired by numerous details such as numbers, colors, plants,
animals while naming their geographical environment. On the other hand, they also
designated names which derived from the industrial entities, materials used in industry
and occupations related to it, and which are a part of the region they were settled (Kurgun
2002, 44). To emphasize, it is understood that the factors such as human, religion,
nature aside, occupations, industry entity and economic system had the influence on the
settlement nomenclature in Anatolia as well (Kartalcık 2014, 238).

In the scope of a study about İzmir and its vicinity, regarding Küçük Menderes
River Basin, it is discovered that 7% of the names of the villages that are found in
this basin carries the influences of the economic geography. Approximately 90% of
the names of the villages around the area in question have their roots in physical and
human geography (Özçelik 2015, 34). It is found out that 61% of the settlement names
designated in Denizli are based upon geography, 21% upon plants, 18% upon colors,

89

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

11% upon general environmental features, 3% upon animal names, 8% upon properties
or belongings and a very small percentage of those are based upon industrial heritage
(Kurgun 1997, 98).

It is understood that 49,6% of the names of the villages in Çankırı were based
upon the factors of nature and habitat, 50,4% of those, on the other hand, are based upon
the human and economic factors. Among the factors of the habitat, water bodies and
plant names stand out while Turkish tribe, clan and family names are the ones standing
out among the human and economic factors (İbret 2003, 53). In Canik/Samsun, 36% of
the settlement names are based on geographical features, 9% on colors, 6% on animals,
40% on names and titles of people, %7 on words related to religion and 2% on names
of occupation. These names of settlements are mainly based on the geographical and
geological features of this region, the local colors, common features of the environment
and vegetation, animals and constructions found in its surroundings (Özcan 2018, 153).
The settlement names in Kırşehir are based on people, occupation, human body, words
related to family and kinship, institutions and organizations, properties and belongings,
names of the constructions, names of food and beverages, words bearing a historical,
religious, national and cultural meaning, colors, animals, nature and natural phenomena,
bodies of water and words related to those and the concepts of size, amount and shape
(Köksal 2019, 284).

As for Ayvalık district, the avenues, streets and squares are named after important
days, significant historical figures and notions that are associated with the Republic.
Nevertheless, it is also possible to stumble on the names, though there are quite few,
regarding the industrial heritage such as Demirciler street, Nalbantlar street in Ayvalık
(Araz 2015, 84).

It is understood that the Turkish government had adopted a considerably serious
toponymy policy within the period stretching between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and
the Turkey in Republic period. Immediately after Mehmet II had conquered İstanbul in
1453, the names of the neighborhoods and villages were radically Turkified. Through the
mid-nineteenth century, naming certain prominent regions within the empire’s territory
after sultans and other members of the dynasty became more frequent. In that period,
recently formed villages and neighborhoods due to the mass migration from the Balkans
and Caucasia or to the existing districts and towns were named after the ruling sultan and
certain figures within the dynasty (Doğan 2019, 60).

Through the end of 1891, in an official letter addressing to Konya province from
the department of home affairs (Dâhiliye Nezareti), it is seen that the name of the village
where immigrants were relocated and found a settlement was Eser-i Hamidi (BOA. DH.
MKT., 1891-112, H. 17.04.1309). In one of the correspondences belonging to the official
post, Baş Kitabet Dairesi, of Yıldız Sarayı, contains the information that one of the
immigrant villages in Trablus- ı Şam was named after the current Sultan (BOA. İ.HUS.,
88-101, H. 30.02.1319).

90

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

As for the Hamitabat village placed under the jurisdiction area of Lüleburgaz district in
Kırklareli, the village was named after Abdülhamit II, meaning “the prospering land of Hamit”.
The word “Hamit” means eulogizer and the word “abad” means a prospering, beautiful place.
Hamitabat village was founded by immigrants from Bulgaria in 1885 (Özdoğan 2016, 80).
When Abdülhamit II was in rule, a mosque was built for the refugees who had been relocated
to an uninhabited part of Ahırlıkapı region in Ankara, later on this village which was opened for
settlement was named as “Bünyad-ı Hamidi”, thus it was named after the current Sultan (BOA.
HH.İ., 92-52, H. 8.12.1311).

The migrants from Caucasia who were seeking asylum in Ankara, were relocated
to Sungurlu’nun Hamallı area by the Ottoman government; and this area was named as
Mahmudiye village (BOA. Y.MTV., 296-72, H. 11.02.1325). After the announcement of the
Second Constitutional Era, the governance of Union and Progress began to change the names of
the villages, neighborhoods and streets which were named after Abdülhamid II. The governance
of Union and Progress issued legal regulations to create a ground for the names of settlements
or streets bearing the name of “Hamidiye” to be altered and replaced by their former names or
some other name (BOA. DH.MUİ., 55-57, H. 19.01.1328).

In a political climate where the committee of Union and Progress were in effect, it is
significant that some of the settlement names bearing the name “Hamidiye” were replaced
by the names of the Union and Progress Committee leaders (Doğan 2019, 63). The official
correspondences contain the information that the alteration of various village and town names
caused difficulties and that there was a demand regarding the necessity to keep the settlement
names as they were until the end of the war (BOA. DH.EUM.VRK., 15-20, H. 24.8.1333).

In the years of the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, the committee of Union and Progress
strived for the names either to be given in Turkish or to be translated into Turkish. In fact, it can
be claimed that the committee was in the spirit of toponomy nationalism (Doğan 2019, 61).
Moreover, the names that are remainder of the military victories are found among the new names
which were designated to the settlements through the period of Union and Progress (Yüksel
1999, 203).

Especially from the beginning of the 19th century, the fact that the Christian vassals in the
Ottoman Empire’s territory revolted and spurred in the thought of independence gave way to
the committee of Union and Progress to define a new policy regarding the settlement names. To
emphasize the dominance of Turkish- Muslim governance over Ottoman lands, the settlement
names began to be selected from the words related to the Ottoman and Turkish identity (Yüksel
1999, 201). In Turkish culture, the names of the people who provided their services to the state
and society are also used in nomenclature of the settlements. It is understood that approximately
three quarters of the settlement names in Denizli are named after clans, families, nomadic tribes
and bands or personal names. The rest of the names have their roots in the landforms such as
plain, hill, mountain or brook (Kurgun 1997, 102). In a recent academic study evaluating 24
cities together in an essay on typology, it is revealed that the personal names, the names of local
and national figures and the names of prominent figures of the Republic were extensively given
to the avenues, streets, boulevards or squares (Araz 2015, 47-48 and 55-57).

91

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

Settlement Names Influenced by Weapon
and Military Industry

Industrial heritage is in general related to the cultural heritage emerged from the
constructions bearing the traces of a particular architecture where the products or services
are produced by the mechanical devices and mechanism (Ertoğrul 2019, 9-10). It is
possible to analyze the influence of the industry of a certain region on the settlements and
urban space via these names. Thus, the settlement names provide highly important clues
in terms of industrial archeology (Köseoğlu 1944, 9).

Certain names of settlements in Turkey are directly related to its industrial heritage.
In Turkey, these names are clearly indicating the presence of its military industry in
particular. The name of Demircihalil village in Kırklareli is closely related to the Ottoman
military industry. Demircihalil village, a very old settlement, was named after a skilled
blacksmith named Halil who was settled in that area (Özdoğan 2016, 13).

Demirköy, which is also in Kırklareli, takes its name from the iron ore where the
soil is rich in iron ore. In fact, while Mehmed the Conqueror had been in preparation to
conquer Istanbul, he had an ironworks workshop, namely a foundry, built in Demirköy,
where iron ore deposits were abundant. In a similar manner, the villages of Okçular,
Topçuköy or Topçular bears the names related to the military industry (Özdoğan 2016,
13 and 25).

The historic district Tophane in İstanbul takes its name from the cannonball
manufacturing buildings that were found in here. When Mehmed II had conquered
İstanbul, he immediately founded an artillery manufacturing shop and artillery barracks in
this district. All the works concerning artillery and ironworks were performed in Tophane
district (Sökmen 2010, 60).

Şişhane district in İstanbul also bears a name derived from the weapon industry.
The name Şişhane was originated from the name of “şeşhane” which is a kind of rifle.
This kind of rifle was most probably being manufactured at a rifle manufacturing shop
situated in Şişhane district (Sökmen 2010, 59).

The craftsman who manufactures equipment for the mounts such as saddle and
leash for horses, donkeys and mules, is called “Saraç”. In the 15th century, Fatih the
Conqueror gathered these craftsmen who were occupied with “saraç” labor in various
marketplaces situated in the district of “Saraçhane”. The origin of the name Saraçhane
has roots in this historic fact. It is also known that in the Ottoman world, there were
workshops manufacturing arrows and tents in Saçhane as well. Moreover, various
equipment was also manufactured in this district for the Ottoman army (Sökmen 2010,
58 and 59).

92

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Settlement Names Influenced by Industrial Occupations

Certain settlement names in Turkey are derived from industrial lines of work and
occupations within those lines. Various settlements in Anatolia for instance, “Eğerci”
village in Terme district of Samsun, Eğerci township in Sivas and Eyerci township in
Zonguldak as well as “Eğerci” village in Torbalı district in İzmir took their names from
the occupation of saddle making. The word “Eğer“ has phonetic changed in time into
“Eğerci, Eğercili, Eğerciler”. In fact, the names of those villages bearing these names are
derived from “eyer”. “Eyer” signifies a seat fastened on the back of a mount. Furthermore,
Eğerciler village situated in Küçük Menderes Basin was committed in official Ottoman
records of 1530 as “Eyerceli” (Özçelik 2015, 134).

Settlement names such as Demirci, Eyerci, Sirkeci, Boyacı are important in respect
to the fact that they represent the occupations related to mining, chemical, textile or forest
products industries (Eren 1966, 161).

For instance in Konya, the names of Dülgerler, Çömlekçi, Demirci, Oduncu,
Katrancı, Uncular, Yağcı villages inherently representative of the occupations that were
commonly practiced (Kara 2010, 203).

It is observed that in the Ottoman world, trade and economic relations as well as
settlements are concentrated on the wide avenues called Uzun Çarşı. Trade organizations
of different lines of work occupy the streets which opened into Uzun Çarşı. Kavaflar
Caddesi (Erzurum), Keçeciler Caddesi (Konya), Kazancılar Caddesi (Sivas), Bakırcılar
Caddesi (Denizli), Yaymacılar Caddesi (Balıkesir), Tabakhane Caddesi (Edirne ve
Muğla), Demirciler (Erzurum), Toptancılar (Sivas), Mezbaha (Balıkesir), Sanayi Çarşısı
(Trabzon), Kuyumcular (Tokat ve Kırklareli) can be given as examples in reference to the
above statement (Aliağaoğlu, Uzun 2011, 130).

In Anatolia, the number of the settlements which are named after an occupation
are considerably high. The percentage of these names related to an occupation is 9%
among the settlement names in Denizli. Furthermore, there are also non-industrial names
such as the names of families, nomadic bands or kadı (presidents of the court) besides
a few names, albeit indirectly, related to the iron or chemical industry such as bıçakçı,
şapçılar, çeltikçiler among the group included with the settlement names related to the
occupations (Kurgun 1997, 100-101).

In Aydın, 141 avenues in total are specified. Among these 16 of them has names
derived from features of natural environment and 125 of them has names derived from the
features of human environment. Among the features of human environment, 15 avenues
have been specified as bearing the names related to occupations. Among these are the
names of Şerbetçi, Ormancı, Çiftçi, Süvari, Piyade, Aktar (Baysan, Kara 2014, 39 and
43).

93

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

Settlement Names Influenced by Industrial Tools and Equipment

Certain settlements in Turkey has names derived from the tools and equipment,
and goods. This fact shows the fundamental materials that are utilized by people in their
social and economic lives found an echo on the settlement names. 11 settlements in Tosya
district of Kastamonu among which are Arabayolu, Çuhalar, Mermerdirek, Zincirlikuyu,
Kılıçlı, took their name from tools and equipment (Topal, İbret 2020, 47).

In the 17th century Ottoman world, the former name of Yünören village in Kayseri
was Kölete. The machine that spins the wool is called Köleter in villages. The name of the
village later changed as Yünören which has a similar meaning to that (Köksal 2019, 142).

Settlement names such as Gesana, Cırnık in Batman are derived from the industrial
tools and equipment which used to be in use in that region. “Gesana” is the name given to
wooden plow. “Cırnık” is a tool made of stone and wood used in grinding grain (Altunışık
2009, 102).

Almost half of the settlement names in Akhisar district of Manisa took their names
from the historical events or from clans, families and congregations. In Manisa, the
number of settlements named after a profession or economic activity among the names
that can provide clues about the industrial heritage makes up around 7% of the names,
while the number of settlements named after goods or other technical tools makes up
around 2% of those (Akınlı, Akbaş 2019, 860).

In Kırşehir, the names of 17 settlement are derived from goods and tools. Among
these Yelek, İbrişim, Beşikli, Halaçlı, Kuşaklı, Kilimli Köyleri, Çarıklı Sokak, Mermerler
can be given as examples (Köksal 2019, 278).

In Çankırı, it is easy to understand the occupations taken up by the villages bearing
the names such as Kiremitçi, Balcı, Kazancı, Cendere, Bulgurcu. It is possible to stumble
upon other villages bearing similar names in various regions of Turkey as well. For
instance, “Cendere” is the tool used in smoothing and mercerizing the fabric. The settlers
of the village named “Kiremitçi” are known to make their living by tile making (İbret
2003, 75).

Settlement Names Influenced by Precious Stones and Mines

There are many settlements in Turkey named after metals or minerals that are
economically valuable. In a recent study, it has been determined that almost half of these
names in Batman are based on physical and human factors, and the number of settlement
names that take their name from the economic geography makes up around 7% of the
names. Among the settlement named after the said economic geography, the settlement
names influenced by the mines make up approximately 3% and the number of these
names influenced by the industry makes up approximately 11% of these given names
(Altunışık 2009, 25 and 88).

94

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

There are also many settlements in Turkey which took their names from precious
stones. In the decade of 1540, a foreign historian wrote that the city of Lüleburgaz took
its name from sepiolite carving (Özdoğan 2016, 16).

In Manisa, Akhisar district, Taşçılar village took its name from the abundance
of stones used in grave making. However, it is also known that the first settlers of this
village were an extended family called Taşçıoğulları. In the light of this, there is a strong
possibility that this village took its name from Taşçıoğulları family (Akınlı, Akbaş 2019,
870).

Boztaş village in Kırklareli was also named after the stones found in this village in
various tones of dun, that are light earth color, ash and grey (Özdoğan 2016, 49).

Marmara region was named after marble quarries. The origin of the name derives
from Greek, thus Marmara is not a Turkish word (Yund 1976, 187).

The streets in Aydın centrum, Altıntaş, Yakut, Tunç, Lüle, Gümüş, Akik, Safir,
Elmas, Zümrüt, Opal, İnci, Yeşim, were named after precious stones (Baysan, Kara 2014,
43).

A great number of the names of villages in Turkey are based on the color, age,
physical appearance, chemical properties, and mineral structure of the stones. The village
names such as Karataş, Taşkaracalar, Sarıkaya, Aktaş, Kurşunlu, Tuzlu, Kayacık of
Çankırı reflect the lithologic elements of the geographic environment they are situated
in. Tuzlu village was actually founded on the salty rocks laying on the banks of Acıçay.
Taşkaracalar village was founded on a land covered with black volcanic rocks. Villages
were named based on the mineral structure of the rocks and their importance. For instance,
Demirli, Kükürt, Kurşunlu villages are among these. Other villages that were named after
the rocks in Çankırı are Boğazkaya, İncekaya, Yolkaya villages (İbret 2003, 69).

Pirinçci village in Ödemiş district of İzmir, took its name from brass-smithing,
a name that corresponds to the labor of making yellow colored alloys made by mixing
copper and zinc that was practiced in this village in the past. Barutçuköyü village in Selçuk
district of İzmir takes its name from the word “barut” meaning gunpowder. In addition
to that, the word “ot” also means gunpowder and there is a village called “Otmanlı” in
Şarköy district of Tekirdağ. Likewise, Bakırköy village in Beydağ district of İzmir took its
name from the copper ore which is commonly used in manufacturing traditional objects
that belongs to Turkish culture (Özçelik 2015, 103 and 129).

Bakırdağı village in Kayseri took its name from the copper mining on the
mountains found in the region. Due to the soil structure of the region, the name of the
village was changed as Taşçı (Köksal 2019, 138).

The village Kömürcü in Akhisar was named Kömürcü because the settlers of this
village used to make their living by working in coal mines (Akınlı, Akbaş 2019, 866).

95

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

The word “Güre” has been exposed to phonetic change and today some of the
settlement names are written as “Küre” and “Küre” means blast furnace. In fact, Güre
district in Uşak was named based on the same kind of industrial activity (Sezen 2017,
135; BOA. DH.İ.UM., 45-33, H. 17.03.1334).

“Keban Madeni” district took its name from the operated mine in Keban (BOA.
TS.MA.e., 6-38, H. 4.8.1214; BCA., 2-36-15, 23.02.1921; Sezen 2017, 332). It is observed
that lead, pure silver and raw copper were extracted from the Keban and Ergani mines in
the days of the Ottomans (BOA. TS.MA.e., 621/ 29, H. 1.7.1227; BOA. TS.MA.e., 622/
26, H. 1.1.1227).

Ergani copper mine deposits are found in the Dicle river valley of Maden district of
Elazığ province in southeastern Turkey. Ergani copper mine is one of the oldest operated
copper mines in the world. Through the end of the 17th century, Ergani and Keban mines began
to serve as the most important centers of Ottoman mineral production (Çevik, Demir, 2014,
28-29). In 1926, Ergani congressman Kazım Vehbi Bey gave a proposal to the Great National
Assembly of Turkey and demanded the name of Ergani province to be as Ergani Madeni. This
demand is of high importance in terms of proving hoe sensitive people of Ergani were about
protecting their industrial heritage (BCA. 30-10-0-0, 8-44-6/ 6, 22.02.1926)

It is understood from the Ottoman archive records that a provincial reorganization
regarding the town of Gümüşmadeni took place right after the announcement of the
Second Constitutionalism. According to the reorganization in question, this town where
abundant reserves of silver ore were mined in the time of the Ottomans was placed under
the administration of Gümüşhacıköyü township of Sivas province found in one-and-a-
half-hour distance (BOA., DH.MUİ., 20-14, H. 13.10.1327; BOA. NFS.d., 2141, H.
15.08.1246; BOA. BEO., 3653-273929, H. 10.10.1327).

Gümüşhacıköy mines were under the administration of Sivas province and the
Amasya sanjak. Moreover, the fact that there was a township called “Maden-i Sim” under
the administration of the sanjak of Amasya indicates the presence of a silver mine since
the word “Sim”, a persion word, means silver (BOA., MF. İBT., 108-106, H. 27.09.1319)

In the Ottoman world, Gümüşhacıköy and Bakırçayı mine under the sanjak of
Amasya used to be known as a region having important silver and lead bearing ore reserves
in Anatolia. Gümüşhacıköy, which takes its name from the silver ore once mined here,
served as a center of silver mines that were strategically important in the Ottoman world,
especially in terms of meeting the need for money (Kurt, Cevger 2019, 222 and 236).

The name of Madenköy, located in the east of Rize, is based on the mining activities
that were performed by various civilizations at this location over a period of thousands of
years (Rize Province Mining Map)

Kömürköy in Kırklareli took its name from the charcoal obtained here. Coal
mining is a very old profession in this village and this fact can easily be known from the
Ottoman archive records of 1896/1897 (Özdoğan 2016, 97-98).

96

Industrial Heritage in the Urban Identity and Memory Axis

Silver coins were produced in Bayburt in the name of Anatolian Seljuk State’s
Sultan, Gıyaseddin Mesud II between the years of 1288 and 1291. It is thought that these
coins were produced in a settlement called Maden in Bayburt. Maden village of Bayburt
today, takes its name from the rich silver veins found in the area. Moreover, it is indicated
by the written sources archived in the first half of the 14th century, Bayburt is the home
of one of the three important silver mines in Anatolia (Tozlu 2016, 483- 484).

Gümüşlük neighborhood which is situated on the highway between Gümüşhane
and Bayburt today may have taken its name from the silver mine found around this
settlement. Homer once acknowledged Gümüşhane region as the native land of silver.
As a matter of fact, it is known that Gümüşhane was called Argyropolis, meaning the
home of silver, back in the time of the Roman Empire. Many geographers claim that
in Byzantine Gümüşhane’s economy was based on the mine reserves and this city was
named Argyropolis meaning the silver city or the home of silver. It is also known that
the name Gümüşhane is given to this city in the time of Suleiman the Lawgiver in the
first half of the 16th century. The presence of the silver mines found in Gümüşhane were
indicated by the famous historian and archeologist Hamilton during his visit to the area
in 1836 (Tozlu 2016, 476- 491).

Settlement Names Influenced by Textile and Clothing Industry

Certain settlement names in Turkey are based on the textile industry such as yarn,
clothing, weaving and knitting. Alaçatı village in Çeşme district of İzmir can be given as
an example for this situation. It is understood that some families in Alaçatı village were
engaged in weaving in the 19th century Ottoman world. Alaçatı village may have taken its
name from a fabric mentioned as “alaca” in Ottoman archive records (Kütükoğlu 2012,
153).

Tabaklar river in Üsküdar took its name from the debbağhane, meaning leather
tanning workhouse which was built on the banks of the river. Moreover, there is a mosque
built in 1587 named Tabaklar as well as a neighborhood and a square named Tabaklar
(Ceylan 2009, 482).

The settlement area named Heban in Batman signifies its industrial heritage.
“Heban” is the processed animal hide which undergoes several stages to be used in
various demands. The name of settlement called “Tişeresk” in Batman means wool
spinning and the names designated to the locations found in this region provide clues
about its industrial heritage (Altunışık 2009, 102).

The name of Terzidere village in Kırklareli can be traced back to the 15th century
and it is thought that the name comes from Terzibaşı Zağnus who was the teacher of Emir
Süleyman’s son, one of the sons of Yıldırım Beyazıt (Özdoğan 2016, 121).

97

Determinations on the Effect of Industrial Heritage ... Cihan ÖZGÜN

Bıçakçı and Debbağhane neighborhoods in Şanlıurfa also indicates the industrial
heritage of the region. Especially, the name of Debbağhane neighborhood comes from
stock farming, leather trade and leather processing which were commonly practiced in
this neighborhood (Özçelik 2018, 115).

Furthermore, the word Kazaz found in the name of the Kazaz foundation which
was established in the name of Mehmed Çelebi bin Abdullah in 1767 indicates the
presence of silk weaving practice in Urfa. The names of other foundations in Urfa also
bears the words Kürkçü, Keçeci, Göncü and those respectively represent that the practices
of furriery and felt making as well stout leather manufacturing or trade of tanned hide that
people were engaged in Urfa (Özçelik 2018, 116).

İcadiye quarter of Üsküdar district in İstanbul also bears a name that indicates
to an industrial past. The factory of the newly invented embroidered cotton prints was
first established by Serkis from Kayseri in the village of İcadiye. In fact, elegant cotton
prints with colorful flowers were woven in this workshop, which was later transferred to
Üsküdar, were called Serkis cotton prints after its founder (Hut 2005, 166).

The name of Kestel village is most probably means river or ravine. However, it is
known that the word kestel means weaving thread as well (Deniz 2013, 203).

It is understood that the name of Hallaçlar village, which is 8 km in distance from
the central district of Denizli, was named after the profession of hallaçlık which was the
most common economic activity of this settlement in the past and the people who made
a living by practicing this profession. “Hallaç” is a practitioner of carding cotton or wool
with a tool (Kurgun 1997, 14).

Especially as an ornament, button had a great importance in the old Turkish
clothing fashion. Old Turkish buttons were made on a hand loom. The button maker
craftsmen had their shops in Eyüp back in the Ottoman world until the 19th century.
Today, that neighborhood still bears the name of Düğmeciler and the musjid found in that
quarter is known as Düğmeciler musjid (Sökmen 2010, 51).

The name of the quarter called Başmakçılar is based on another industrial practice.
“Başmak” is a type of shoe. This quarter, most probably, took its name after shoe making
or the famous extended family in İstanbul called Başmakçılar or Paşmakçılar (Sökmen
2010, 50).

The name of Buldan district in Denizli was registered as “Boladan” according
to the Ottoman archive records kept in the 16th and 17th centuries. The word “Boladan”
means linen used for covering the head. In the light of this, it is possible to assume that
the reknown name of Buldan derives from Boladan (Kurgun 2001, 27). In an offical
letter sent to the Governorship of Aydın in 1888, it was emphasized that the people of
Buldan township of Denizli were engaged with the practices of “harir“ weaving, that
is silk fabric making and “alaca” weaving, that is fabric weaved with colored threads
(BOA., DH. MKT., 1473/ 65, H. 16.04.1305). In fact, in an archive record of 1925, it

98