Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ankara has lost its valleys, orchards,


Published on

Paper Presented at "Summer School: Atatürk Model Farm", by Gazi University, International Summer School 2005, Gazi University Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of City and Regional Planning, Ankara

Published in: Education, Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ankara has lost its valleys, orchards,

  1. 1.  Gazi University  Faculty of Engineering & Architecture Department of Urban & Regional Planning          INTERNATIONAL SUMMER SCHOOL Ankara, TURKEY, 13-17 June 2005   “ANKARA”  The City Longing For Its Environment By Mehmet Tuncer         Assoc. Prof. Dr.      
  2. 2. Ancyra, Angora, Ankara,
  4. 4. Modern Capital of Turkey
  5. 5. seven millioninhabitant are projected for 2020
  6. 6. BUT : Ankara:lost its valleys, orchards, rivers and streamspart of its historical environment
  7. 7. (1711) Gravure of Pitton Tourneford
  8. 8. In 1839; Angora was walled small town
  10. 10. Today, the heritage of Atatürk, Atatürk Orman Çiftliği,
  11. 11. one of the important “ecological protection zones”; Imrahor Valley, Eymir and Mogan Lakes,
  12. 12. Eymir-Mogan Water Basins
  14. 14. Last lakes and valleys need to preserve as an ecological system!
  15. 15. Mogan, Eymir Lakes, Cubuk Dam and ImrahorValley are under the thread of pollution from highways and urban, industrial wastes
  16. 16. Result of water pollution: deaths of fishes
  17. 17. Mogan & Eymir Lakes environmental problems and potantial pollution sources
  18. 18. basin of the Cubuk, Ankara River and fertile lands in west,
  19. 19. on the Istanbul Road to theKazan, Elmadağ where famous for skiing facilities are under threat.
  20. 20. There is a considerable pressure on historic core
  21. 21. Orchards:
  22. 22. Valleys, hills of Keçiören, Etlik, Dikmen, Seyranbağlari were firstly invaded by the squatter houses (gecekondu).
  23. 23. after 1983 via improvement plans
  24. 24. those areas were opened to high rise development.
  25. 25. As a result, the urban green, which had already been destructed by(build and sell type) of contractors
  26. 26. AFTER SQUATTERS : Urban renewal samples from Etlik and Keçiören
  27. 27. were wiped away by high risedevelopment in the inner parts ofthe valleys, which were definitely not available for settlements.
  28. 28. Castle of Estergon
  29. 29. Valleys, Rivers and Streams again :
  30. 30. Many valleys with rivers likeAnkara Cayi, Bendderesi, Çubuk Cayi (Stream) was put underground and
  31. 31. was included in the sewer systemdue to the fact that they had been formerly used for sewerage.
  32. 32. Jansen’s design of a swimmingpool on the Roman Bend was put away and forgotten
  33. 33. Barakalaşma- Shelter housing onthe hills of Altındağ, which was once ignored and was not pain enough attention,
  34. 34. firstly turned the Bend River into apolluted water stream and then to a sewer system.
  35. 35. In fallowing years themagnificent base of the valley, on which the Ankara Castle rises,
  36. 36. covered by the squattersfinally the Bend River Avenue was constructed on river.
  37. 37. Having the “Hıdır Tomb” on theAltındağ Hill already annihilated,the beautiful green areas and trees on the bank of river,
  38. 38. which once the place where the Hıdırellez was celebrated, completely destroyed and disappeared.
  39. 39. Orchards Again:
  40. 40. The habitants of Angora used to orchards (BAĞLAR)at higher spots of the city in orderto keep themselves from the dusty and scorching days.
  41. 41. plateaus of the south and north of Angora had Etlik, Keciören, Dikmen, Gaziosmanpasa, Esat orchards.
  42. 42. There used to be fabulousorchards houses built by the well- off habitants of the city.
  43. 43. It is plausible to say “used to be” because almost all of them were demolished, destroyed unfortunately
  44. 44. except for the few which arepreserved until today and themulti-storey blocks took their places.
  45. 45. Except one at Keciören :
  46. 46. This house which is now used as Ankara Research Center
  47. 47. in Gaziosmanpasa the orchard inthe Papazın Bağı, Karlı Street arethe ones who survived trough the time and destruction of master and implementation plans.
  48. 48. Gecekondu Improvement (!):
  49. 49. Orchards, in the modern (!) life inwhich the seasonal migration wasforgotten, were firstly covered by squatter housing as if there is noplace else for growth in the city.
  50. 50. And then in 1980 as if a great invention, the areas were “improved” by the district municipalities.
  51. 51. Only seeing the improvementaction in the Keçiören would be enough to astonish you.
  52. 52. Almost all of the quarter“improved” via constructing 5 to 8 stories of apartment blocks
  53. 53. without leaving any area for urbanopen space, urban green, or public uses like sports areas or playgrounds.
  54. 54. Gecekondu (Squatter) renewal (not rehabilitation!)high rise and high density, destroying all greenery
  56. 56. Also the Valley of Çubuk Stream, which was once the place whereflower greenhouses and vegetablegardens existed, was “improved”,
  57. 57. and the area is fully covered witha huge hypermarket, municipality buildings,
  58. 58. and “Gaudy-like” arabesque-styled apartments that are proof of the development of Turkisharchitecture which can compete with Spanish examples.
  59. 59. Orchards, valleys and rivers of Dikmen and Etlik also were brutally “improved” like the Keçiören case.
  60. 60. “Urban Renewal” (!) in the Yenisehir and housing cooperative areas:
  62. 62. YENISEHIR / KIZILAY : Destroying the landscape, historic & cultural and human scale urban spaces
  63. 63. The foundation for thoseinventions was laid in the early60ies when the Flat Ownership Law came into force.
  64. 64. The first cooperative zones like Bahçelievler, Güvenevler, Yenimahalle, Or-An, Varlık Mahallesi, Subayevleri etc.,
  65. 65. ., and almost the whole Kızılay was demolished and reconstructed, sometimes for twice, in 15-20 years.
  66. 66. KAVAKLIDERE 1931
  67. 67. KAVAKLIDERE 1991
  68. 68. This process is called “urban renewal” in the planningliterature; however, the renewal is generally applied to socially problematic high-rise zones in western societies to create low density areas.
  69. 69. In spite of this fact, probably because there was no other placeleft for settlements and in order to protect the lowlands and hills of Ankara,
  70. 70. the renewals at the same quarters over and over seemed to be a natural process.
  71. 71. God knows how many times we encountered never-ending andcontinuous electric, water, naturalgas and sewerage excavations and asphalting in many places in our city.
  72. 72. Of course these constructions, muddy roads, ditches,excavations, even walking to our houses on wooden bridges had been a funny trip back to mydays in my eastern home village childhood days.
  73. 73. It has been way too late when we realize that continuously renewed pavements andinfrastructure has been one of thebiggest environmental problems
  74. 74. and one of the reasons of the ever- increasing inflation and national depts.…
  75. 75. I have lived most of my life inthe Bahçelievler; and I have been trying to live on between the never ending constructions and
  76. 76. continuously renewedinfrastructure systems;
  77. 77. I have been struggling with ever-increasing population, traffic and parking problems.
  78. 78. It is easy to examine that thisprocess have been going on in many quarters of the city.
  79. 79. The effects of all the destruction of orchards and urban green,
  80. 80. how dense the city have gotten owing to construction of multi-storey apartments standing on atleast 3-4 times bigger land then the former structures,
  81. 81. Prof. Hermann Jansen’s Plan : BAHCELIEVLER (Garden Houses)A good example of thedestroyed living urbanspace and environment
  82. 82. RESULTS : air pollution, noise and visual pollution
  83. 83. Air pollutionespecially in winters
  84. 84. it is not easy to calculate the social and economic problems, environmental problems,psychological problems caused by these changes!
  85. 85. All these changes have taken place for land owners andcontractors to make huge amounts of profit.
  86. 86. The flats are shared betweenthem; however, paying the price for infrastructure and goingtrough the process is left to us to experience!
  87. 87. Our national wealth has been wasted on the poor qualitystructures that collapse on our people in every earthquake.
  88. 88. A modern, and planned capitaltown, the end of the episode in which Jansen tries to create a Garden City;
  89. 89. here we have had air pollution,transportation problems, lack of infrastructure and non-served, non-green environment;
  90. 90. since this is the situation, we cansay now that we should preservethe last green areas in the city as if they are “oasises” in a desert.
  91. 91. Old Ankara :
  92. 92. ULUS SQUARE 1930
  93. 93. ULUSSQUARE 2004
  94. 94. Old Ankara were not able tosurvive the never-ending rent quarrel;
  95. 95. ANAFARTALAR 1926
  96. 96. ANAFARTALAR 2004
  97. 97. except for the areas which weredesigned as “Protocol Areas” in Jansen’s plan, especially themain streets of multi-storey (6-8- 10) buildings.
  98. 98. the development of Yenişehirand the pressure of CBD had not affected this area to an extend.
  99. 99. owners who could not demolishthe old structures and build new ones,
  100. 100. deserted the quarters of OldAnkara and left them into a decline.
  101. 101. INNER CITADEL : Remains of Old Ankara
  102. 102. One of the mainremains of thehistoric & cultural urban heritage
  103. 103. Surrounded by Squatters (Gecekondu)
  104. 104. residential tissue turned into oneof the poorest areas with newuses: 1. warehousing,2. secondary uses3. urban deteriorated areas .
  105. 105. The area turned into a “ghetto”,which is used by the immigrantsonly till they built themselves a squatter house
  106. 106. “The Citadel”, that Jansen defined as the “Crown of the City”, and which was kept without any conservation strategy until early 80ies,
  107. 107. had became the focus of unplanned applications viahistorical site (Protocol Area) restrictions
  108. 108. and long lasting conservation plan preparing processes.
  109. 109. The historical tissue, which triedto rehabilitate itself owing to the attention of tourism
  110. 110. and intellectual groups, was destroyed by eclectic structuresthat copied the civil architecture of Ankara.
  111. 111. The urban design project forHacıbayram pedestrianised the area, and dolmuş buses are displaced.
  113. 113. The aim : creating a pedestrian square;however, today we see that the area is again invaded by vehicles.
  114. 114. 20 years passed after the Ulus Competition Project,
  115. 115. the places which went trough urban design and restoration processes in the 100 hectares ofarea is not more than the number of one hand’s fingers.
  117. 117. Çıkrıkçılar Rise, HükümetSquare, Suluhan Area, Itfaiye Square are yet to be pedestrianised,
  118. 118. in fact, they are under pressure becoming more dense and of vehicle traffic.
  119. 119. The enormous AltındağMunicipality Building in EsenPark in this quarter of the city, not only annihilated the vista point of Jansen plan,
  120. 120. but also showed the merit to collapse the pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area.
  121. 121. The Kaleiçi in the Old Ankara, which is piece by pieceannihilated by fires, still is yet to be protected by a Conservation Plan.
  122. 122. The Old Ankara’s situation in thisrespect is not very different form the New Ankara; however, there are SIT restrictions that stop the speculators.
  123. 123. If these restrictions wouldn’t exist, it is plausible to say that Old Ankarawould be demolished in weeks and – let’s not so exaggerate- 4-5 storeybuilding would be constructed in the Kaleiçi.
  124. 124. Conclusion:
  125. 125. Today natural, cultural andhistorical environment of Ankara is still annihilated.
  126. 126. Improvement plans are gamblingand mortgage of the future of the city;
  127. 127. and the time to stop this process is definitely just more than arrived.
  128. 128. Also all citizens, non- governmental institutions, local and central governmentauthorities are responsible for this process;
  129. 129. however, the biggest responsibility does belong to the owner of these cities, municipalities.
  130. 130. Inventory of historical and cultural heritage and a“Conservation Masterplan for Ankara” should be formed.
  131. 131. A complete inventory of natural values, water basins, rivers,valleys, valuable lands, flora and fauna should be formed.
  132. 132. “Natural EnvironmentConservation Masterplan” should be prepared in order to preserve and improve all of the stated above.
  133. 133. “Metropolitan Area Masterplan” should be prepared which preserves natural, cultural and historical heritages (in 1/25000 or 1/50000 scales.)
  134. 134. Urban Designs should be prepared so as to form specialized projectsfor restoration and rehabilitation ofthe values stated above (in 1/5000, 1/1000, 1/500 … 1/1 scales.)
  135. 135. The destroy-built-sell and improvement planning processshould be taken under control, and structures should not bedemolished before they expire their economic and technical lifetimes.
  136. 136. The revising of infrastructure, roads and pavements in everyelection campaign should be taken under control with limitations; since this the only way to reach a sustainable urban development.
  137. 137. The citizens, habitants of Ankara should be enlightened andinformed about the conservation of natural and historical environment.
  138. 138. Empowering the non-governmental institutions to makethem be able to undertake projectsfor conservation and development is also very important issue for the future of the city.
  139. 139. It should not be forgotten thatevery citizen has an important part in this process.
  140. 140. Referances :• TUNÇER, M., Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İçin Tarihsel Çevreyi Koruma Politikası : Ankara, Bergama ve Şanlıurfa Örnekleri, Doktora Tezi, AÜ, SBF.• ANKARA İMAR PLANI, 1937, S.5, Alaeddin Kıral Basımevi, İstanbul. (Hermann Jansen’in Ankara İmar Plan Raporu, Türkçe Çevirisi)• Ankara Kalesi Koruma Geliştirme İmar Planı, Projesi, Yarışma Şartnamesi, Ank. 1987.• Mehmed Kemal, 1983, Türkiye’nin Kalbi Ankara• ÖNEN, R., Ahi Şefafettin Camisi ve Çevresinin Sağlıklaştırılması Projesi, TMMOB. MO Ank. Şb. “Kültürel Miras Sayısı”.• Ulus Tarihi Kent Merkezi Çevre Düzenleme Yarışma Şartnamesi, Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi, İmar Dairesi Başkanlığı,• Ulus Tarihi Kent Merkezi Çevre Düzenleme Yarışması, I. Ödül Raporu.• Ankara BŞB, Ankara Programı Uygulama Planı, 1989.• Koruyucu Kent Yenilemesi,•