HISTORIC TOWNS IN ANATOLIA : Part I

Historic Towns in Anatolia: Part I

Ass. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Tunçer

I. Introduction

Turkey is a land where rich civilisations have flourished for thousands of years in the past and a leader among the countries which bear great universal responsibilities for the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The importance of preserving this cultural heritage cannot be limited only to the aim of introducing our past values to future generations, also using the remains from the past as the most important resources to create the future is a critical necessity. It is becoming significant for nations to integrate their cultural identities with their new environment of life. Modern creations in architecture and urban planning which are both carried out with no consideration for national and historical values, hasten alienation. Preserving the cultural heritage of different cultures with equal care and respect will help the feelings of peace and brotherhood to find roots in a world under globalization, while at the same time providing a propelling force towards the development of a rich and multi-colored cultural mosaic with the interaction of different cultures. To date, 44,406 immobile cultural assets have been listed in Turkey, with 2857 sites, including 2425 archeological sites, 269 natural sites, 146 urban sites and 17 historical sites (1).
Since the 1970s, Turkey has also had its role in the intensification of efforts on international platforms. According to the statements of the "Agreement on the Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Inheritance of the World" which Turkey has accepted along with the other member countries of UNESCO, the involved governments have guaranteed the preservation of the cultural and historical values within their registration. From within our country, Pamukkale, Göreme, Cappadoccia, Istanbul, Bogazkoy, Mount Nemrut, Xanthos-Letoon, Patara as well as Divriði Ulu Mosque and Darüþþifa have been included in the List of the World Cultural Heritage. “The Agreement on the Preservation of the European Architectural Heritage" has been put into effect by the Law dated April 13, 1989, numbered 3534. According to the Agreement on the Preservation of the Mediterranean Against Pollution (the Barcelona Pact), 17 sites from our country have also been included for preservation among the 100 historical sites of equal importance in the Mediterranean (2).
The first opposition to the Western countries taking away valuable cultural objects to their own lands with a preservation system based on private property, was with the Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi (Regulations on Antique Monuments). Afterwards, the method of preserving the cultural heritage also changed when the Ottoman Empire contacted the West with the Gülhane Hatt-ý Hümayunu (Gülhane Royal Decree). At this period, the whole Empire had become the market of the industrial and trade bourgeoisie of the West; the preservation of the cultural heritage was continued with no real understanding, with a museum based-method; and even the preservation of monuments, even with monumental value, was unsuccessful.
Following 1923, a method of preservation parallel to the efforts made to adapt the economy of the land to the changes in the new socio-economic structure, was pursued and certain principles were laid down. In the year 1944 the First Advisory Committee indicated the need for the preservation of ancient monuments together with their building plans. As in the rest of the world, legal arrangements were made and organisations created in Turkey for the preservation of the cultural and historical environment; the effort in this matter is ongoing.
Our land is quite rich in cultural and natural valuables. And the preservation of this wealth is possibly only through law. The most important laws and regulations on this point, which have made possible the creation of a Code for Ancient Monuments, are the 1710 numbered "Law on Ancient Monuments" put into effect on 3 rd May, 1973, which follows the "Asar-ý Atika Nizamnamesi" dated 10 th April, 1322 (A.D. 1904), and the "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets", dated 21th July, 1983, numbered 2863, and the variation of this law numbered 3386.
The search for regulations fitting the features of cultural valuables and the conditions changed in time necessitated new legal arrangements (that replace one another). Therefore, let us examine briefly the two main regulations that carry the force of law and that were created the year 1923, that is, since the declaration of the Republic.

II. The "Law on Ancient Monuments" Numbered 1710 (3)(It’s o.k. as to use the Chapter Number)

The aim of this law, was the preservation of old monuments and the prevention of smuggling and trading ancient objects. This law considers that all mobile and immobile items related to science, religion, culture and fine arts, all archeological and ethnological monuments, and all material and documents related to the history of art are to be part of its context.
The Ancient Monuments Law either extensively limits or eliminates altogether the possession rights of individuals, under ground or above ground, for items concerning science religion and fine arts, belonging to prehistoric or historic periods. Real estate possessions could be preserved best not by exhibiting them, but by integrating them into daily life and making them live. To that end, especially the efforts and wishes of individuals who are aware of this point should be supported in a controlled manner instead of being hindered.

III. "Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Assets" Numbered 2863 and Implementations (4)

In the "General Motivation" part of the Law sketch, it is emphasized that Turkey leads among the countries with great universal responsibilities on the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity. The need for a "Preservation Policy" that includes Central and Local Administrations is stated, while the "Local Administrations" are either included very slightly or excluded altogether in the programme. Although the need of establishing a sufficient legal, organisational and financial infrastructure is mentioned, the organisations that were created seem to be leaning more towards control and documentation, such as the "Centre for the Preservation, Training, Research and Documentation" or the "Application of Technical Control Units". On the contrary, this organisation is required more to aim at solving the daily problems of people living on sites about applications (relevant construction, creation, restoration projects, technical and financial problems of repairs). Although the "Fund for Preserving Cultural and Natural Values" seems to be a positive prospect, the fact that it is going to be allocated centrally gives rise to the concern that political aims might enter the game. The parts that require priority and haste are the shores, the touristic regions and the metropolitan city centres undergoing rapid urbanization; these points experience the damage caused intensely and very quickly to cultural and natural values.
As can be observed, the concept of an archeological site carries great weight. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to make decisions on the organisation, financing and application/control of archeological sites, and to emphasize their importance through laws and regulations. New and effective policies should be developed concerning excavation and research regulations and the planning and arrangements of archeological areas. The personnel in existing museums and ruins should be supported and make more effective.
Success can be achieved in the preservation and improvement of natural sites, through the co-operation and synchronisation of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Culture, along with the support and involvement of local administrations. As for the urban sites, it is of vital importance to form "Local Preservation Committees" and to follow through applications under the control of the Preservation Committees. The decisions made and the plans and projects created can only be put into practice through this course of action. It is very important not to think of the urban sites separately from the urban totality, and also to include in this attempt the local administrations, which serve the city in all aspects. A "Preservation Fund", much like the "Mass Housing Fund", has been created by the law. Apart from this fund, it is essential to put local and voluntary resources in action with the participation of local administrations as well as landlords and tenants on sites, and of civil local organisatons (foundations, companies, societies, co-operatives, banks, political parties etc.). Moreover, it is important to transfer resources, loans, donations and the like from organisations and associations abroad.
The work of repairs of individual buildings as well as the arrangements of the infrastructure and the environment should especially be carried out with the organisation of local administrations and under the control of committees. Repairs should not be made on buildings within the historical pattern before the infrastructure of monuments and environmental arrangements have been competed. Wide-ranging solutions should be worked out so that, while providing control and establishing financial penalties, the social dimensions of the problem should also be taken care of, working towards a solution for the residence and land in question and keeping the increase in land rents under check.
Local administrations should be made aware of and activated for the preservation by supporting them technically and financially (5).

IV. Current Policies, Applications and Problems about the Preservation of the Historical and Cultural Environment in Turkey (6)

"If my observations and judgements are accurate, urban preservation especially is impossible in Turkey through the methods indicated by the teaching of orthodox preservation. We should not fool ourselves by making examples of back alley, weak, random applications. The Antalya Harbour, the Soðukceþme Street or region that were conserved without preservation in Safranbolu could not erase the memories of destruction in Ýstanbul, Ýzmir, Kayseri, Urfa, Erzurum, Gaziantep, Konya, Antakya and innumerable cities and towns."
Prof. Dr.Dogan Kuban (7).

As Mr. Kuban remarks, it is not possible to state that the preservation policies for the historical and cultural environment in Turkey have achieved their aim to date. In particular, the immigration from rural to urban areas and the rapid urbanisation following 1950, the residence and tourism aimed second wave of shore plundering following 1980, and immigration phenomena from the Eastern and South-Eastern Regions, for security and economical reasons, have reduced to tatters the balance of cities which were formed over hundreds of years ago. The illegal buildings wave, that first began at the fringes of cities (gecekondu/squatters), has, through building pardons, gradually extended the rest of the cities like a cancer, and has become one of the main urban problems today.

The phenomena summarized below have appeared because of the rapid urban growth:

· Plans which are prepared with no intention of preservation but even with just the opposite aim, the goal of annihilation; like the construction of roads in disharmony with the traditional pattern, under the cover name "building", or the increase of building rights,
· According to these plans, new buildings which are being created in towns are not in harmony with their traditional urban environment; they have build areas and heights which are in conflict with the pattern, and destroy the traditional urban patterns in cities, and only serve speculative ends,
· Stopping former planning decisions by the declaration of historic urban sites, leads to the further phenomena of bad maintenance, non-preservation, aging, desertion and destruction of traditional patterns and historical urban centres because of the insufficiency of planning and of applying efforts towards preservation,
· Transport and parking problems that gradually increase because of excessive building and population density,
· A social transformation, with the development of squatters and the social destruction of regional properties, arising in traditional patterns, due to the possession holders deserting the area.

Although the problems outlined above differ from region to region, they are observed to be general problems. The immigration rate, the potential for development, the quality of the traditional pattern (building materials and the relation of the pattern to newly developing parts of the city), the potential for tourism and the approaches of local administration in every individual city cause variations in the preservation of the historical and cultural environment in each city. According to the law numbered 2863, "Preservation-Aimed Plans" should be prepared by the local administrations. However, when needed, local administrations can obtain technical and financial aid from the Ministry of Culture. In some cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Ýzmir, Bursa, Antalya etc.) the preservation aimed planning efforts have been and still are carried out by the units created by the local administrations within their own bodies. During these planning efforts, the local administrations receive preservation-aimed plans from private firms or project competitions since they themselves are technically insufficient.

As examples:
· Ankara /Ulus Historical Urban Centre Preservation Improvement Project Competition, (The Greater Municipality of Ankara),
· Ankara Citadel Preservation and Improvement Plan Project Competition, (Altýndað Municipality and the Ministry of Culture),
· Antalya/The Citadel Gate Arrangement Competition, (Antalya Municipality),
· Gaziantep/ Inns Region Urban Design Competition, (Gaziantep Municipality),

could be indicated.

The Ministry of Culture carries out the functions of detection and registration (recognition and recording), of traditional urban patterns, vernacular buildings and archeological areas and of the determination of the boundaries of sites since the early 1970s (The Law of Ancient Monuments - numbered 1710, and the Law on the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Valuables - numbered 2863). Efforts on the planning of these areas could not be effective until the late 1980s except in a few special cases (Cappadoccia, Pamukkale, Bodrum, Safranbolu, Ýstanbul’s some parts etc.).

In the late 1980s the Ministry of Culture took a great leap, albeit late, and started the preservation-aimed planning of historic urban quarters and archaeological sites and monuments (using the highest-bidder method), which had been left to the local administrations by law. There are projects which have been completed (Þanlýurfa, Perge, Talas, Mardin, Bartýn, Göreme, Afyon, Konya etc) and which are still on-going through (Patara, Pergamon etc) these biddings.
However the completion of these projects takes too long a period of time, and some have been brought to court by the local administration or the property owners. Since some of the areas of preservation of the historical environment are included in the Specially Environmental Protection Areas (Patara, Xanthos, Pamukkale, Dalyan, Göcek, Köyceðiz, Cappadocia etc.) a multi-headed method of planning and application management is in question.
Thus, the authority to plan and order plans in these areas is under the Authority for Protection of Specially Protected Areas, which is under the Ministry of Environment, and the authority of approval for the application in archeological and urban sites in these areas is under the Ministry of Culture and the High Council for Preserving Cultural and Natural Assets which is supposed to be independent (!), is under the Local Councils.
When the local administrations (Prefects, municipalities, village identities), which is the real owner of the region, also joins in the opposition between these two entities, it causes a chaos results which is hard to solve. There are interminable correspondences about who should make the preservation-aimed plan, who should approve it and which stage should be applied by whom.
The best examples of this situation are the current applications in Pamukkale and Patara. A detailed examination of each of these examples reveals the sad, even tragi-comical condition of preservation policies today. Even this is not the end of the problems. What one organisation does, the other dislikes; therefore the preservation areas are now very much like blackboards - written on, erased, rewritten on. Thus, the already limited resources are also being wasted.

V. Problems in Archeological Sites and Suggestions for Solutions

As in the historic urban sites the boundaries of archeological sites are not fixed and they change constantly. By decree of the Preservation Councils, shifts and alterations are being made among I., II. and III. degree archeological sites, and this leads to the idea of decisions being changeable among people. Thus the boundary declarations should be made once, supported by scientific research, and no changes should be made about these boundaries without the support of new data, documentation and findings.
Environmental control is not complete in some of the archeological sites, entries are not under regulations and complete chaos reigns, leading to unlawful excavations and theft of ancient monuments. Environmental control should be enforced and fences should be constructed around archeological sites, ruins, hills and tumuli (Tümülüses) and guards should be set for the important ones.
Planning aiming to the preservation of archeological sites is either insufficient or non-existent. Preservation-aimed planning attempts of antique cities like Bergama (Pergamon), Perge, Pamukkale (Hierapolis), Efes (Ephesus), Patara etc. have only been taken into consideration in recent years. This planning of archaeological sites should be completed by scientific methods as soon as possible, by setting aside the political and inter-organisational rivalries. Priorities should be detected and planning and investments should be directed accordingly.
Control and preservation mechanisms that are left to the local administrations are insufficient owing to financial and technical impossibilities. The Ministry of Culture cannot supply the necessary control or support. The control, maintenance and repair of all areas from the centre is impracticable. Hence, local offices should be formed and these offices, which are to be equipped technically and financially, should be made to provide effective planning, project creation and applications.
The arrangement of entrance points, tour routes, rest and service points in archeological areas and ruins are often very insufficient, primitive and far from scientific. Such inadequacy is encountered in many of the ruins that are in use for tourism purposes. Therefore, firstly concept designs (toilets, entrance points, resting points, souvenir sales points etc.) and, following that, designs specific to the architectural properties of the region should be obtained and applied. Obtaining these designs through contests could lead to significant results.
Prevention of illegal excavations, reclaiming old monuments that have been smuggled abroad, controlling excavations and exhibiting the found monuments, all these are heavy and effort-claiming problems. Improvement of existing museums and efforts towards the exhibition of antique towns as open air museums are matters that require the cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Tourism. Such matters could not be addressed very fully in the limited time available for this present work.

VI. Problems in Urban Sites and Suggestions on Solutions

Problems of archeological sites such as boundary changes, licensing/ unlicensing, lack of planning and lack of control are encountered in urban sites as well.
Moreover, the rapid population growth and urbanization, the phenomenon of from rural to urban migration, unplanned growth of cities, and land speculation in our country affect the urban pattern, which has to be preserved extremely adversely. Historical town centres and traditional urban patterns that are at the heart of towns are affected by the rapid growth, the increase in density and old buildings being pulled down and new, multi-stories ones being erected; the traditional urban patterns are being destroyed in spite of all the efforts and legal restrictions.
The delay in considering preservation at the urban scale (at pattern scale) has resulted in the loss of the picturesque view of many of our towns, like Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Ýzmir and Kayseri, although delayed efforts on planning and preparing project for preservation have spread wider after the 1980s. Following the authority being passed on to the legal administrations, many of them have started to stand up for their towns, embarking upon preservation-aimed planning efforts.
It is not possible to claim that these efforts have been sufficient. However, it can be said that a certain awareness of the environment has emerged, also with the influence of tourism. This is an indication of how long was the delay initiated by the Ministry of Culture for the preservation-aimed planning tasks by the method of the highest bidder since the beginning of the 1990s. The important point is not also to prepare preservation plans but to take certain organisational and financial precautions related to their application and to apply them.
It is not possible to hope for the achievement of this procedure with the current structure of the Ministry of Culture, which is constantly dependent upon ever-changing political decisions. It is extremely sad that in a medium of "CHAOS", which is created through demoting members of the Council of Preservation, exiling them to other locations, or through assigning non-expert people ignorant in "Scientific Preservation" to their positions, decisions of destruction and speculations are spreading far and wide.

The following suggestions could be named "Sustainable Preservation Policies":

1. Historical environments and traditional residence patterns should not be regarded only as our cultural variables, but in accordance with the concept of "Sustainable Development", and also as housing stocks.
2. In that aspect, planning and projects should be carried out that contain not only preservation but also rehabilitation, improvement and renovation.
3. The "Regulations" developed by the Mass Housing Department until 1997, which were prepared with the approach that concerns traditional urban patterns as residential patterns/housing stocks, should be applied at once.
4. The heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, problematic, unproductive, technically weak aspects of the Ministry of Culture have to be improved. Instead of policies that change daily according to politics (the Minister, the Representative or the General Manager), new long-term policies that are determined according to the resources and priorities of the land should be created and applied. The Preservation Councils and Bureau Management that are the local departments of the Ministry of Culture should be released from their present passive, heavy structures which are ineffective in addressing problems and in delay preservation, to be replaced by active, technically and financially equipped, effective mechanisms.
5. Multi-headedness in the laws and in the organisational structure on the issue of preserving should absolutely be prevented. Reconsidering the allocation of authority and responsibility, a single "Law of Urban and Environmental Preservation" should be created.
6. Policies of preservation and on-the-spot improvement should be advocated by increasing the technical and financial support to local administrations and controlling their services.
7. Informing the people of the region about their historical environment, making them aware of it, thus assuring their positive help and involvement in the matter of preservation, is regarded as the most important means of preservation. It is extremely important to teach, to introduce and to show a love of the cultural diversity and cultural values of the land, starting at a very early age.

As a conclusion, it can be said that the point arrived at after decades of disregard and looting in the matter of the preservation of historical and cultural values, is the point of losing, if not all, most of these values. The local and central administrations, which are supposed to prevent this, are observed to be unequal to this task. It is our belief that the duty required of every educated person is to participate actively in the efforts of preservation of the cultural and historical values.
(Toshio, I think it’s better to use a new Chapter Number here !):

II Ankara: Capital of Modern Turkey

II.1. A Short History of the City

The history of Turkey dated back to the prehistoric ages. Some caves, such as Karain at the region of Antalya, dated back to the upper Paleolithic age. The site of Çatalhöyük (6500-6550 B.C.) is the oldest Neolithic town; it lies 50 kilometers south of Konya, a region closely connected by trade with the Middle East. On the other hand, the first settlement in Troy is presumed to be Homer's Troy and dated back to 3000 B.C.. The first Empire in Anatolia was the Empire of the Hittites, in 1750 - 1200 B.C. which extended from the Black Sea to Palestine. Its capital Hattuþaþ (now called Boðazköy), lies 200 kilometers to the north-east of Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey. Also near this place are the Hittite city of Alacahöyük and the holy place Yazýlýkaya. During the Hittite period, there were also other states in Anatolia. In the east and south-east the Mitanni Kingdom lay and in the south lived the Luwians. Having been a Phrygian city in the 8 th century B.C., Ankara was then the capital of Galatia between the 2 nd century B.C. and 25 B.C. Having fallen under the domination of the Roman Empire in 25 B.C., Ankara experienced its most prosperous period during the following years, thanks to its role as the representative of the Roman Empire in Anatolia. During this period, Ankara acquired the position of being an important intersection point of Roman roads, which led to a great development in administrative, military and commercial activities with the population reaching as high a level as 100,000.
During the Roman Era, Ankara covered the hill and the plains on the west side of the fortress. The place of the Citadel was possibly a Acropolis. The City maintained its importance during the early days of the Byzantine Empire. After the 7 th century, the city was threatened by the Sasanis and the Arabs and was forced to return inside the fortress. The outer (Dýþ Kale) and the inner (Ýç Kale) fortresses which are still to be seen today, were built for this purpose and the remains of monumental buildings pertaining to the Roman period were used for the construction. Later, during the 8 th century, the city was occupied by Harun Reþid's army.
Ankara was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in 1073, prior to the foundation of the Ottoman Anatolia Union, after the long domination of the Byzantine Empire since 334, and has remained under the Turkish rule. The Citadel took its present form during the period of the Byzantine and Turkish principalities. The inner part of the Citadel has been used as settlement since that time, according to the recorded dated 1522.
The fact that Ankara was one of the Ahi centres played an important role in the development of its commercial functions. A certain part of the total of 30 Caravanserais in the city was built. They were located around the great mosque (Ahi Þerafeddin). In the periods of development of the Ottoman Empire, there was a further momentum with soft wool (sof), a special product of this city, which was acquired a world reputation as angora wool. The building of "Bedesten" (a kind of covered bazaar where wool, antiques and jewelery were sold) and of great Caravanserais (inns) took place in the 14 th and 15 th centuries.
In response to the increase in population, the city centre had also begun to expand and new commercial districts such as Tahtakale and Karaoðlan around Suluhan prospered. In the first years of the 17 th century, a third city wall was built as a means of protection against Celali outbreaks (Figure 1, dated Ankara in 1711).
The 18 th and 19 th centuries saw the commercial and economic viability of the Mediterranean countries. The Ottoman Empire and region Anatolia had undergone a sharp recession due to the shift to the main trade routes to the oceans and to the development of the West. Being unable to compete with the modern textile industry, the economy of Ankara entered a stage of total depression towards the end of the 19 th century and this was further aggravated by the fact that the soft wool (sof), a special product of the city, was also produced in other countries (Figure 2).



Figure 2. ANKARA IN AN OLD PAINTING (SOF PRODUCTION SCENERY IN FRONT)

The advent of the railway from Ýstanbul in 1892 created an atmosphere of relative viability and the boulevards named Station and Talat Pasha were constructed, connecting the railway station to the old city and Ulus (Taþhan). The center of the city began to prosper at the same period, in concomitance with all the other development.


II.2. Ankara As The Capital

Following its proclamation as the Capital of the Republic of Turkey on the 13 th October 1923, Ankara entered a stage of planned growth and development. The law numbered 583 which was passed subsequently to the proclamation of the city as the Capital, envisaged and provided for the extension of a new Ankara in the area between the historical town and the district called Çankaya, prohibiting the demolition of the historical buildings in and around the traditional old quarter. Thanks to this firm resolution brought in by the said law, the traditional structure of the historical sites of Ankara could have been more or less preserved.
The "Sýhhiye Plan" (New Town/Yeniþehir) prepared by Heussler in 1927, and the urban plan drawn up by the German professor Hermann Jansen in 1928 as a result of an international competition, represent two important steps in the planned development process of Ankara (Figure 3). Jansen placed a special emphasis on the conservation of the "traditional structure" by designating the historical urban site as the "Protocol Area". He also made certain plan decisions as regards the historical site (Figure 4).
Further arrangements relating to the historical site of Ankara were included in the reconstruction plan of Nihat Yücel and Rasit Uybadin who won the plan competition in Ankara, making it a metropolitan area in the 1970’s, with a 16 fold and a 46 fold increase respectively in its population and its expansion area. Due to the stunningly high rate of urbanization, 60 percent of the city developed outside the planned area, while the historical sites underwent a relatively lower degree of change as a particular section of the metropolis.

II.3. The Conservation Project of the Citadel of Ankara

"The Conservation, Rehabilitation and Development Plan of the Citadel" aimed at the preservation of the historical site with its own characteristics (Figure 5).

The conservation plan consists of the following aspects:

a. Traditional Production and Selling Areas :
In the "Ankara Citadel Culture, Tourism and Commercial Centre", there will be traditional production and selling units (shops) on the main pedestrian roads such as "Kalekapýsý, Doyran Street and around squares such as Ramazan Þemsettin Mosque Square, and Alaeddin Mosques Square". These shops will be on the ground level, in old traditional houses which are supposed to be restored, and also in some inner courtyards (avlus).

The traditional crafts are the following:

- The traditional Angora Goat wool (sof),
- Angora cloths, textile, woven materials,
- Angora cikriks (spinning-wheels),
- Turkish carpets, woven mattings (kilim), production, exhibition, and selling units.
- Wickerwork, rush mat production shops, selling units.
- Woodworks, handicrafts.
- Traditional Turkish copper, silver and gold ornaments and jewelry shops etc.

In this area, there are some traditional works of art which had nearly disappeared and are intended for education and to encourage the renewal of culture and tourism.

b. Daily Commercial Area :

These areas serve the daily necessities (drink, food, refreshments etc.) of visitors and persons staying in hotels and boarding-houses in the Citadel.

c. Recreation and Accommodation Areas :

Intended for cultural and tourism functions; restaurants with traditional Turkish cuisine and foods as well as hotels and boarding-houses showing the traditional hospitality, will be found in the Citadel.

- Hotels and boarding-houses.
- Restaurants (Turkish cuisine, Ankara food).
- Special cuisine (tandir, doner, sis, lavas etc.).
- Cafes (Turkish cafes), pubs.

d. Cultural areas :

These are:
- The Old Ankara House Museum..
- The History of Ankara Museum.
- The War of Ankara Museum.
- Social Centres (Library, videos, slides, places).
- Art Galleries (paintings, sculptures, music, open show area).

II. 4. Implementation Phases of the Conservation Plan

To date, the scales of the 1:5,000, 1:1,000, 1:500 conservation plans have been completed. As from now, the scale of the 1:200 and higher scales (1:100, 1:50, ......1:1) implementation projects will be designed. And the infrastructure (water, electricity and swage etc.) as well as the landscaping will be completed. At a later date, both the Municipality and the house owners will get together to implement the project.


SOURCES

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF CONCERN ON THE HISTORICAL
ENVIRONMENT, C. Erder, 1971, Ankara.
2. PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
TMMOB Chambers of Architects Publications, 1979, İstanbul.
3. LAW OF HISTORIC MONUMENTS, NUMBERED 1710 Comments-Examinations,
1976, İstanbul.
4. REGULATIONS ON IMMOBILE CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS, T.R.
Ministry of Culture, 1996, Ankara.
5. WRITINGS ON THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT,
M. TUNÇER, Lecture Notes, 1996, Ankara.
6. This section has been prepared with the aid of the unpublished Doctorate Dissertation by
M. TUNÇER, “Policies on the Preservation of Historical Environment for Sustainable
Development: Ankara, Bergama, Şanlıurfa”, Ankara University, Faculty of Political
Science, Department of Public Administration and Political Science, Urban and
Environmental Sciences, 1995.
7. KUBAN, D., 1993, “Could There Be a Policy of Preservation Specific to Türkiye?”,
1. Colloquium on Urban Preservation and Renovation Applications, April 7-8 1993, MSU,
Fac. of Architecture, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning.