Karaköy-Kemeraltı bölgesinin 20.yüzyıl başından günümüze gelişimi, koruma sorunları ve öneriler
Development of Karaköy-Kemeralti district, from begining of the 20th century to present, conservation problems and suggestions
Yazar: SEZGİ GİRAY KÜÇÜK
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. DENİZ MAZLUM
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Restorasyon Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2012
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture
Dizin: İstanbul-Galata = İstanbul-Galata

Özet:
Beyoğlu Kentsel Sit Alanı içinde yer alan Karaköy-Kemeraltı bölgesi, kültürel miras açısından oldukça zengin ve üzerinde çok çalışılmamış bir bölgedir. Gündemde olan Galataport projesi ve onaylanmış Kentsel Sit Alanı Koruma Amaçlı Uygulama İmar Planı, buradaki olası değişimin ilk adımlarıdır. Bu planlarla çehresi değişeceği düşünülen çalışma alanında önce kültür varlığı değeri taşıyan yapıların, sonra yapı adaları, sokak ve cadde oluşumlarının geçirdiği değişimler belgelenmeye çalışılmıştır.Belgeleme, yerinde gözlemlerle eski haritaların karşılaştırması ve buna literatür araştırmasının eklenmesinden oluşmuştur. Bu süreçte Goad, Pervititch, Suat Nirven gibi sigorta haritalarından, d'Ostoya haritasından ve diğer haritalardan yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma alanındaki yapıların yarıdan fazlası korunması gerekli kültür varlıklarıdır. Belgelemeye bunlardan başlanmış, bir envanter oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır. Sonrasında yapı adalarının, sokakların ve mahalle dokusunun zaman içinde geçirdiği yangınlar, depremler, imar faaliyetleri ortaya konulmuştur. Bölgedeki en önemli değişiklik Menderes dönemi imar faaliyetleriyle Kemeraltı Caddesi'nin açılması olmuştur. Bu süreçte aralarında bir Türk-Ortodoks kilisesi de olan birçok yapı yıkılmış, sokak dokusu, caddeye dönüştürülmüştür. Çalışma alanında üç Türk-Ortodoks Kilisesi, üç Rus Kilisesi, bir Ermeni Kilisesi, bir de cami mevcuttur. Bu da bölgenin, çoğunlukla gayrimüslimlerin yaşadığı bir yer olduğunun kanıtıdır. Tez kapsamında bölgenin geçmişine, oluşumuna, liman bölgesi olmasından dolayı yaşanan taşkınlıklara ve limana gelen deniz araçlarının çeşitliliğine yer verilmiştir.20. yüzyıl başına kıyasla Kemeraltı bölgesindeki işlevlerin oldukça değişikliğe uğradığı saptanmıştır. Bugün tamamı ticaret işleviyle görülen Kemeraltı bölgesinin, 20. yüzyıl başında konut, eğlence mekânları ile ayakkabıcı, kuyumcu, şekerci gibi çok çeşitli ticaret birimleriyle gece-gündüz yaşayan bir yer olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Bugün ise bölge, gündüz makine parçacısı, hidrofor satıcısı, tornacı, araba tamircisi gibi işlevleri olan, gece ise girilmeye korkulan, evsizlerin yaşadığı bir yerdir. Tez kapsamında bu sorunlar tespit edilmiş, bugün bölgede bulunan terk edilmiş, aşırı tahrip olmuş, kullanılmayan kültür varlıkları ile bu sorunlar örtüştürülerek, tescilli yapıların kullanılarak yaşatılması hakkında önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Bu süreçte bir öneri paftası hazırlanmış, önerilen öncelikli madde, gece-gündüz kullanımının sağlanması, bölgeye konut, kültür merkezi, müze gibi işlevler verilmesi olmuştur.Bölgedeki sokak isimlerinden ve binalardan, çalışma alanının Tophane kısmının mezbahalar, buzhane, at ahırları, tabakhanelerle bir hayvan kesim merkezi olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu şekilde sokak isimleri kıyaslanarak bölgenin yok olan soyut mirası ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılmıştır.Karaköy-Kemeraltı bölgesini gelecekte tehlikeler beklemektedir. 2005 yılında çizilen Galataport Projesi ve yakında onaylanan Beyoğlu Bölgesi Kentsel Sit Alanı Koruma Amaçlı Uygulama İmar Planı bunlardandır. Her iki planda da bu bölgenin turistlere yönelik düzenlenmesi fikri esastır. Oysaki bölgede turistleri taşıyan kruvaziyerlerçok büyük kütleleriyle olumsuz etki yaratmaktadır ve liman sebebiyle sahil kısmına yerel halk erişememektedir. Tez kapsamında, buradaki limanın kaldırılması önerilmiştir.Sivil toplum kuruluşlarının, mimarların, bu konuda bilgili kişilerin ve burada yaşayan halkın görüşleri alınmadan, bir kamusal alan olan sahillerimiz hakkında karar verilmemelidir. Bu şekilde ortak bir karara varılmayıp, yalnız turistlere yönelik planlama yapıldığı takdirde Kemeraltı'nın eklemlenerek oluşmuş kültürel mirasının gelecek nesillere aktarılması çok zor görünmektedir.

Abstract:
Karaköy-Kemeraltı district located within the urban conservation area of Beyoğlu is a relatively unexploredsection of Istanbul. The actual Galataport project and the approved ?Implementation Plan for the Protection of the Urban Conservation Area? are the first signs of an important change here. It is thought that these plans will change drastically the face of Kemeraltı. This thesis aims at documenting the buildings of the area which are historically valuable, the streets and avenues and to retrace the changes that occurred from the beginning of the 20th century. The working area is situated between -the Kemeraltı Street in the northwest, Maliye Street in the southwest, the Bosphorus in the southeast and the Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque in the northeast. The northwest section is located within the boundries of the old Galata walls, whereas the southeast occupies a land on the Bosporus, which was filled in the 19th century. These two parts differ from each other as the sizes of the buildings located inside the walls are still smaller than the buildings located outside the walls. Today, while in the Bosporus part of the working area, big sized office blocks and administration buildings exist, in the other part small office blocks, churches and mosques are seen. Churches are the biggest buildings of this part. Besides churches, small office buildings and other commercial places also take place. Galata had continued its function as a port, starting from Byzantine times. It is known that in this period it was a very lively and crowded port and because of the presence of many sailors from different nations, it was a place of chaos and conflict. Nowadays the port is a cruise port for the tourists. The oversized cruises harm the historic skyline of Istanbul and disturb the people living there. In the content of the thesis, the problems of the working area are studies. Especially the intra-muros section of old Galata with its narrow streets is infested with parking cars. Another problem is that, the area is not used in the evenings because of having only commercial shops. Only homeless children are seen in night time and this increases the guilt rate of the region. As the area lost its residential character and as the commerce in the area is mostly concerning mechanics, it is mostly frequented-by male users. Furthermore, almost no cultural building, library or entertainment facilty exists. In order to balance day-night usage of the area, residential functions are proposed for the deserted cultural heritage buildings, on the other hand, a rehabilitation center for the homeless youth; museums and cultural centers are envisaged. Another important issue is the removal of the administrative functions of the port by converting the existing buildings into public cultural spaces in order to allow people to have direct contact with the sea. In the working area there are three Turkish-Orthodox churches, three Russian churches, one Armenian church and one mosque. These figures show that this regionis a place where mostly non-Muslims had lived. The only mosque being here is Bayezid-i Cedid mosque which was built as a masjid in the 15th century and renewed in the 19th century. The Greek-Orthodox churches also date from the 19th century as a result of frequent fires that destroyed the area. The only Armenian Church is Surp Krikor Lusavoriç Church, rebuilt in 1966 following the expropriations and demolisions in the late 1950?s. Russian churches are ?roof churches? over residential buildings which were built in 19th century. In the working area there are four roof churches with small domes and Russian cross, of which two are still in use. Frequent fires that occurred in this area devastated timber buildings and in the beginning of the 20th century the area was rebuilt with masonry office buildings Besides this, the most important change in the area had been the widening of Kemeraltı Street in 1958, resulting in the partial or total demolition of the existing buildings. The analysis of the listed buildings of the area consisted in determining the number of stories, construction materials, usage and conservation status. The analysis revealed, that 32% of the buildings are listed, and 85% of these listed buildings are examples of civilian architecture, 11% religious, 4% administrative. Almost every listed building in the area is a jack-arched, masonry structure. As construction type, 64% of all buildings are reinforced concrete and 36% of them are masonry. High buildings in the working area are the nine storied concrete structure on the ruins of the old Turkish bath, Karaköy office block and two office blocks on Kemeraltı Street. There are lots of vacant shops in Kemeraltı Street. While 58% of the buildings are entirely used, %28 of them are used partly and %14 are not used. Documentation of the working area consists of current observations, old and new maps comparisons and literature search. Goad, Pervititch, Suat Nirven insurance maps, d?Ostoya municipality maps, and partly, Mamboury, Galata Plan, Schneider-Nomidis maps are used. For easing the work, the area is divided into three parts which are also divided into four sub-parts. 99 inventory numbers are given to the cultural buildings and documentation started with them. Every numbered buildings? current status is examined, with the help of Goad map, it is compared with the status of the beginning of the 20th century. Then, the changes of wards, parcels, streets and district texture are identified. In the content of the work, mostly used material is Goad maps. In the history, it is known that non-Muslims used assurance agencies more than Muslims. That?s why the areas which non-Muslims lived were drawn detailed in Goad maps. This was an advantage for the research. After comparisons between Goad maps and current status of the place, it is revealed that while there were houses, hotels, offices, factories, cafes, restaurants, brasseries in the beginning of the 20th century, today there are only offices and trade units. The district texture in the beginning of the 20th century doesn?t exist today. Another issue determined from the street names and building functions is that, Tophane region was a place full of abattoirs, ice houses, horse barns and taweries. By comparing the street names, it is tried to understand the intangible values of the heritageIn the chapter about suggestions, solutions are searched to the problems and some issues about the general of the working place and the cultural valuable buildings are suggested. At first, in order to balance day and night usage, houses and dormitories are offered for the intra-muros section. The functionalities of the office blocks in theport region are not changed but instead of current trade types, the functions thet would also attract women like boutiques, cafes are proposed.Because of the vehicles using the narrow streets, pedestrianisation is suggested in some sections. Galata Şarap İskelesi Street which is one of these sections has a lot of registered buildings and it is planned to be the cultural axis and in Liman Han it is suggested to build a marine museum especially devoted to Kemeraltı region. The other buildings in the street will have library, book shop and other trade unit functionalities. The axis of the street extending to southeast reaches the Bosporus. In this thesis it is suggested to remove the obstacles that prevent the public access to the sea, by converting the sea-side administrative building of Çinili Rıhtım Han into a restaurant or wine house. The other administrative buildings in the coastline will also serve as public social buildings, public training centers, art galleries and workshop places. Culturally valuable and abandoned buildings are also given suitable functions whereas a rehabilitation center for homeless children is also settled in the area. The Galataport project elaborated in 2005 and aiming at transforming the port to a tourism attraction is a controversial topic for the areaThe effects of this project should be reconsidered, taking into account the World heritage values of Istanbul. The border of the Implementation Plan for the Protection of the Urban Conservation Area for Beyoğlu region is Kemankeş Street on the southeast. As the administrative buildings on the coastline are not included in the plan, no change is envisaged for this section. According to the Implementation Plan, almost all of the buildings in the working area will serve as ?service and trading functions for tourism?. It is obvious that, this plan is a plan for tourism which has developed parallel to Galataport project. After its implementation, a new district that lost its local colors and old functions will appear. However, as it is mentioned before, this place will be better with houses, cultural and public buildings, shops and open areas. Everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. The local identity and intangible heritage of the region shouldn?t be wiped out with the functions only for tourists. Karaköy and Salıpazarı are not appropriate as cruise harbor. The location of the harbor is very advantageous for the tourists but it prevents the local people?s access to the Bosporus. In Galata region, new buildings should respect the old texture of several historic layers. The history, experiences and people of this region shouldn?t be ignored for economic advantages. Non-governmental organizations, architects, academicians and the people living here should have a right to speak about their coastline. As a result, with not having a common decision and with planning the coastline only for tourists, it seems very hard to transfer the cultural heritage of Kemeraltı to the other generations. The history, experiences and local users of this region shouldn?t be ignored for economic advantages. Non-govermental organizations, architects, academicians and the people living here should have coastline. A planning that excludes local inhabitants and that takes into account only tourism can not help Kemeraltı to survive with its cultural values.