NPT 50 IpekAkpinar

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285136310
The Rebuilding of stanbul Revisited: Foreign

Planners in the Early Republican Years
Article in New Perspectives on Turkey March 2014

DOI: 10.1017/S0896634600006580
CITATION READS
1 108
1 author:
Ipek Akpinar
Istanbul Technical University
21 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
stanbul View project
Turkification of Istanbul View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ipek Akpinar on 21 November 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

59
The rebuilding of stanbul
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

revisited: Foreign planners in
the early Republican years
pek Akpnar
Abstract
In the 1930s, the attention of Turkeys politicians shifted back from An-
kara and Anatolian cities to stanbul. In 1932, the Governorship-Munic-
ipality of stanbul organized an urban design competition for stanbul,
and four foreign city planners were invited. In the meantime, Martin
Wagner came to stanbul for the preparation of urban reports. In 1937,
Henri Prost, the prominent urbanist of Paris, was invited to stanbul and
prepared the first master plan of the city. In Turkey and in stanbul, town
planning processes have been significantly influenced by Western plan-
ning principles, cultures, and experiences while gaining a local meaning in
the context of Turkish politics and the state-formation process. The aim
of this study is to describe the urban design competition of 1933 and the
first master plan of 1937. Beyond references to Western European cities
as in the city-beautiful planning approach, this study, based on a series
of official documents, plan reports and their rhetoric, investigates in par-
ticular the role of foreign planners/urbanists in stanbul in the context
of the construction of a nation-state. The analysis of these foreign plan-
ners work suggests that urban planning in Republican Turkey was closely
linked to the construction of the nation state.
Keywords: Early Republican era, rebuilding of stanbul, foreign experts, ur-

banization, modernization.
After 1923 when Ankara was proclaimed the capital of the Republic of
Turkey, the design of cities formed an important part of the program of
the new nation-state. stanbul, the capital of the earlier empire, dominat-
pek Akpnar, stanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Takla
34437, Taksim, stanbul, akpinari@gmail.com.
New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 50 (2014): 59-92.

60 pek Akpnar
ing the Balkans and the Middle East (Eastern Mediterranean), ceased to
be the center of attention, politically and geographically. The intangible
aura that surrounds capital cities and acts as a magnet for commerce was
transferred to Ankara. Starting with the un-executed 192425 plan of
Carl Christoph Lrcher, it was always Ankara, the new capital planned
along the lines of the Hermann Jansen Plan of 1928 and engraved in a
German architectural vocabulary, which was the symbol of the nation-
state.1 Representing both ideologically and physically the Republican
modernity project, the urbanization of Ankara became the priority for
the authorities, and the national model of urban modernization.2 It was
also the first time that stanbul, with its cosmopolitan character but
without the seat of government, had found itself outside the mainstream
of politics.
Yet, throughout the 1930s, the attention of politicians and city
planners increasingly shifted back to the former Ottoman capital. The
mid-twentieth century reconstruction of stanbul falls into two phases:
Initially, in 1932, the governorship-municipality of stanbul decided
to organize an urban design competition for the modernization of the
city, and, in 1933, Major-Governor Muhittin stnda invited four
foreign city planners (Henri Prost, Jacques Henri Lambert, Donat-
Alfred Agache, and Hermann Ehlgtz) to submit proposals. Although
Ehlgtzs proposal was chosen, it was not implemented. In the mean-
time, Martin Wagner also came to stanbul for the preparation of urban
reports.3 Subsequently, in 1936, the experienced French urban designer
Henri Prost was re-invited by the stanbul mayor-governor to prepare
a master plan. Similarly to the previous reports prepared by European
planners,4 parts of Prosts plan were characterized by Haussmanian
boulevards and a powerful visual aspect, reproducing images of Europe.
1 For general reading, see footnote 10. For recent contextual discussions see Bernd Nicolai, Moderne
und Exil: Deutschsprachige Architekten in der Turkei 19251955 (Berlin: Verlag fur Bauwesen, 1998);
Burcu Doramac, Kulturtransfer und nationale Identitt: Deutschsprachige Architekten, Stadtplaner und
Bildhauer in der Trkei nach 1927(Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2008); Sibel Bozdoan and Esra Akcan, Turkey:
Modern Architectures in History (London: Reaktion Books, 2012); and Ali Cengizkan, 19241925 Lrcher
Plan: Ankarann lk Plan (Ankara: Arkada, 2004).
2 For a broader discussion, see lhan Tekeli, Modernite Alrken Kent Planlamas (Ankara: mge, 2000);
Gnl Tankut, Jansen Plan: Uygulama Sorunlar ve Cumhuriyet Brokrasisinin Kent Planna
Yaklam, in Tarih inde Ankara, ed. Yldrm Yavuz (Ankara: ODT, 2001), 301-316; Cengizkan,
Lrcher Plan; and see also lke Tekin, Trkiyede kinci Dnya Sava Sonras Betonarmenin nas
(PhD Dissertation, T, 2013).
3 Martin Wagner, stanbul Havalisinin Plan, Arkitekt 10-11 (1936): 301-306; and stanbul ehrinin
Dzeltilmesi Meseleleri, Arkitekt 8 (1936): 217.
4 Henri Prost to Governor-Mayor Muhittin stnda, 19 September, 1935. Fonds Prost, donated to
the Acadmie dArchitecture and located at the Institut Franais dArchitecture Centre dArchives de
lArchitecture du XXe Siecle (henceforth IFA/AA archive), HP, ARC, 30/43.
61

These were implemented over the following fifteen years of Republi-
can Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi or CHP) one-party rule.
After World War II, during a period of global transformations, Turkey
moved towards a multi-party system. In 1950, following the victory of
the Democrat Party (Demokrat Parti or DP) in the national and mu-
nicipal elections, Prost was dismissed. His departure marked the end of
an era. Responsibility for the city plan was put in the hands of Turkish
nationals, who then revised Prosts plan.
The above-mentioned planners were only five of the approximately
two hundred foreign professors and engineers invited to take part in the
modernization of the Republic. In the process of building a national
identity, stanbul, the former imperial capital, constituted a specific case
in Turkish urban modernization. It was during the radical political tran-
sition that planners prepared reports and the first master plan for the
city of stanbul. However, for a long time, historians did not credit either
the competition of 1933 or the first master plan with playing a prima-
ry role in Turkish urbanization.5 Unlike the modernization of Ankara
and the Jansen Plan in the same period, the reports of the competition
of 1933 and the Prost Plan have largely been perceived as beautifica-
tion projects based on a hygienist vision, which, according to the 1951
report of the Revision Committee, overemphasized wide boulevards.6
This has been the basis of a misinterpretation of the design, twisting the
framework related to the modernity project.7 The proposed network of
roads, large parks, and picturesque conservation of the traditional sil-
houette were dismissed as beautification. In other words, those design
elements were considered as a continuation of the beautification concept
of the nineteenth centurythe re-birth of the city-beautiful planning
approach of the early twentieth centurypaving way for the misinter-
pretation of the design proposals.8
5 Although not acknowledged in the ministerial publication of 1973, in the publication for the 75th years
of the Republic, the master plan was not described in any more detail. 50 Ylda mar ve Yerleme (An-
kara: mar ve skan Bakanl, 1973); Mete Tapan, stanbulun Kentsel Planlamasnn Tarihsel Geliimi
ve Planlama Eylemleri, in 75 Ylda Deien Kent ve Mimarlk, eds. Yldz Sey and lhan Tekeli (stanbul:
Tarih Vakf, 1998), 77-80.
6 Revizyon Komitesi Raporu, unpublished report by the revision committee, stanbul, 1951. Personal
archive of Professor Kemal Ahmet Aru.
7 This interpretation was by an active member of the committee, Kemal Ahmet Aru, who described the
first master plan as a design based only on hygienic park-garden architecture. See Kemal Ahmet Aru
stanbul Planlamas, unpublished report, stanbul, c.1960. Personal archive of Professor Aru.
8 I have borrowed the concept of city-beautiful from Olsen. The term refers to the beautification app-
roaches in urban planning widely used in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For a broader de-
piction, see Donald J. Olsen, The City as a Work of Art: London, Paris, Vienna (London: Yale University
Press, 1986).
62 pek Akpnar
Planning and architecture went through a paradigm shift at the turn

of the twentieth century. Above all, planning as a new science of town
building endeavored to heal the ills caused by the uncontrolled growth
of cities as a result of industrialization in Western countries. In Tur-
key, as elsewhere, town planning processes were significantly influenced
by Western planning principles, cultures, and experiences, with foreign
experts playing important professional roles.9 In the national estab-
lishment of Turkey, town planning was seen as a discipline not only to
shape the built environment, but also to generate a modern aspect for
the city. In order to successfully accomplish these goals, foreign experts
(predominantly German-Austrian and French) were invited to create
the first plans for cities nationwide. Urbanism was perceived by the Re-
publican authorities as an effective instrument to reorganize cities in ac-
cordance with scientific criteria while building the infrastructure that
would sustain economic development and providing the equipment that
a modern society required. Modernization of the cities was also under-
stood to mean the arrangement of settlement areas conducive to modern
life-styles and hygiene and the creation of open public spaces contribut-
ing to the flourishing of a civic public realm. Many valuable works on
the history of Turkish planning focus on planning experiences related to
early Republican modernization.10 Recently, the planning practice and
modern theories of the twentieth century have been revised in multi-
disciplinary readings. In the post-colonial period, new studies indicate
the critical importance of other modernities, and how their political
contexts and social actors are closely linked to social and cultural trans-
9 For a broader discussion on foreign expertise in other geographies, see the revisionist historiography
by Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, Urbanism Imported or Exported: Native Aspirations and Foreign Plans
(Chichester: Wiley Academy, 2003).
10 Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin, eds., Modern Turkish Architecture (Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania, 1984); stn Alsa, The Second Period of National Architecture, in Modern Turkish Ar-
chitecture, 94-104; nci Aslanolu, Erken Cumhuriyet Dnemi Mimarl, (Ankara: ODT, 2000); Se-
lim Denel, Batllama Srecinde stanbulda Tasarm ve D Mekanlarda Deiim ve Nedenleri (Ankara:
ODT Mimarlk Fakltesi Basmevi, 1982); lhan Tekeli, Trkiyede 19.Yzyl Ortalarndan 1950ye
Kadar Kentsel Aratrmalarn Geliimi, in Trkiyede Sosyal Bilim Aratrmalarnn Geliimi, ed. Sevil
Atauz (Ankara: Trk Sosyal Bilimler Dernei, 1986), 247-250; lhan Tekeli, The Development of the
Istanbul Metropolitan Area: Urban Administration and Planning (stanbul: Kent Basmevi, 1994); . Teke-
li, 19. y. stanbul Metropol Alannn Dnm, in Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl Kentleri, eds.
Paul Dumont and Franois Georgeon (stanbul: Trk Tarih Vakf, 1996), 31-60; . Tekeli, Trkiyede
Cumhuriyet Dneminde Kentsel Gelime ve Kent Planlamas, in 75 Ylda Deien Kent ve Mimarlk,
ed. Yldz Sey (stanbul: Bankas ve Tarih Vakf, 1998), 48-53; Stefanos Yerasimos, Tanzimat Kent
Reformlar zerine, Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl Kentleri, in Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl
Kentleri; S. Yerasimos, Istanbul and Its Westernization Process, in Istanbul: World City (stanbul:
Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf, 1996), 48-53, exhibition catalog; and Afife Batur, 1925
1950 Dneminde Trkiye Mimarl, in 75 Ylda Deien Kent ve Mimarlk, 209-34.
63
formations.11 Nevertheless, there has been little research produced on

the competition of 1933 and the first master plan of stanbul.12 In for-
mer studies, the role of foreign planners in the modernization of the
imperial capital has not been sufficiently discussed either. Furthermore,
such documents were spread in various archives in Turkey and France
and were not classified or inventoried in their entirety. Recently, howev-
er, collaborative research has accomplished an in-depth documentation
of the work of Henri Prost on the planning of stanbul.13 Nevertheless,
11 An initial example is Zeynep elik, The Remaking of Istanbul (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1986). This classic work depicts the rebuilding of the imperial center in the nineteenth century. In their
recent book, Elvan Altan Ergut and Bilge mamolu cover a series of alternative and contextual rea-
dings on Turkish urban historiography. Ergut and mamolu, eds., Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar Zamanlar
nsanlar, (Ankara: Dipnot Yaynlar, 2010). Similarly, Bozdoan and Akcans Turkey: Modern Architec-
tures contributes both to the historiography of Turkish modern architecture and also interdisciplinary
modern Turkish studies. In the context of Ankara, Zeynep Uludas Cumhuriyet Dneminde Rekre-
asyon ve Genlik Park rnei, in 75 Ylda Deien Kent ve Mimarlk; Cengizkan, Lrcher Plan; and
Nee Grallar Yeilkayas Halkevleri, deoloji ve Mimarlk (stanbul: letiim, 1999) offer a contextual
reading of the urban planning of the new capital in the early Republican years. Similar studies are also
available for other cities, such as Cana Bilsels presentation of an alternative historiography for the city
of zmir, situated on Turkeys Aegean coast and its third-largest city: Bilsel, Ideology and Urbanism
during the Early Republican Period: Two Master Plans for Izmir and Scenarios of Modernization,
Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 16, no. 1-2 (1996): 13-60.
12 Luvre de Henri Prost, Architecture et Urbanisme (Paris: Acadmie dArchitecture, 1960) remained for
a long time a unique study detailing the background of the French urbaniste. Michel Protsenkos thesis
concentrates on the contribution of Prosts Plan for stanbuls landscape and briefly describes the role
of the French designer. Michel Protsenko, Henri Prost (MA Thesis, LInstitut Franais dUrbanism
de Paris, 1988). Similarly, Cyril Auffrets Istanbul: Fin de Sicle (Grenoble: Universit de Pierre Mendes,
1994) gives an ideological and chronological description of the modernization process in stanbul
in the Ottoman and Republican eras, and also stages a critique of urban development where the
architectural competition of 1933 and Prosts plan assumed a wider role with their description of
features and execution. Cana Bilsels doctoral study partly describes Prosts role as an adviser in the
preparation of the master plan for zmir in 1924 by Ren Danger. Bilsel, Cultures et Fonctionnalits:
Evolution de la Morphologie Urbaine de la Ville de Izmir aux XIXe et XXe sicles (PhD Dissertation,
University of Paris X-Nanterre, 1996). Also, in a series of articles, Prosts assistant Aron Angel details
features of the architectural competition of 1933 and Prosts Plan, and describes the process chrono-
logically. For a piece that locates the urban development of stanbul in a complex socio-political his-
tory of Turkey, see Murat Gl, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, Transformation and Modernization of
a City (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2009). For an example that discusses French architects role in French
North African colonies, see Gwendolyn Wright, The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism (Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991).
13 An archival study entitled Documentation and Inventory on Henri Prosts Planning Work in Istanbul was
conducted by Cana Bilsel, pek Akpnar, Stphanos Yerasimos, and Pierre Pinon in 20042008, sup-
ported by the TBTAK-EGIDE Joint Research Program PIALe Bosphore. The international research
project focused on archives at Fonds Prost donated to the IFA/AA archive and the planning notes for
Les Transformations dIstanbul held at the stanbul French Anatolian Research Institute (IFEA).
The research unveils a series of new materials (Prosts letters, notebooks, course notes, annotated
photographs and other writings) that shed light on the modern design principles for stanbul. The re-
search consists of recording and digitizing the original documents and preparing an inventory of the
mostly unclassified documents in the archives of both countries. As a result, a comprehensive digital
documentation of Prosts work on the urbanization of stanbul in the period of 19361951 has been
accomplished. Based on this archival research, Cana Bilsel and Pierre Pinons co-edited book entitled
64 pek Akpnar
the research did not explore the relations between the competition
of 1933, the Prost Plan, and the modernizing framework of the
nation-state. Neither did it reveal how the common term of beau-
tificationreflecting spatialization of espaces libresenvisaged
the integration of aesthetics and politics. Finally, no relationship
was set up between the competition of 1933 and the Prost Plan.
Focusing on the urban planning of stanbul from the mid-1930s to
the early 1950s, this study questions how the Republican authorities and
the foreign planners approached the problem of modernizing stanbul.
A re-reading of the competition of 1933 and the first master plan and
related documents through the archival material aims to show the mis-
interpretation of the designs as an ordinary beautification project to be
a prejudiced and incorrect view. Beyond references to Western European
citiesthe city-beautiful type the study investigates what the 1930s
proposals by foreign planners meant in terms of aesthetics and politics
in the context of the nation-state. Based on the reports of the competi-
tion of 1933, the formation of the planners, and the writings and docu-
ments at the Institut Franais dArchitecture (IFA), this study depicts
the planning of stanbul by foreign experts over two decades, and ques-
tions the relationship between the competition of 1933 and the master
plan of 1937 with the politics of the early Republican years. It aims at a
new reading of the foreign planners approach as part of the making of a
modern and secular city and society. The study initially focuses on nine-
teenth century imperial stanbuls characteristics and the role of foreign
expertise as an initial step of planning. Secondly, it narrates the urban
design competition of 1933 as well as the invitation of foreign experts
in the early Republican period. Thirdly, it introduces the Prost Plan of
1937 within its modernizing political context. Finally, it gives conclud-
ing remarks covering the works of foreign planners throughout two dec-
ades of Republican modernization in the former imperial capital.
From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prosts Planning of Istanbul (19361951)
(stanbul: stanbul Aratrmalar Enstits, 2010) focuses on the story of urban planning by Henri
Prost. Akpnars chapter The Making of a Modern Pay- Taht in Istanbul: Menderes Executions after
Prosts Plan (167-199) offers a speculative argument about the continuity of foreign expertise in the
1950s in stanbul. As part of stanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture program, Materials from the
archival research at IFA comprised exhibitions entitled From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Mo-
dern City: Henri Prosts Planning of Istanbul (19361951) at the Pera Museum and Istanbul 19102010 at
the Bilgi University Central Campus. The focus of these exhibitions was the first master plan. For the
context of stanbul, pek Akpnar uses a rhetorical analysis to depict how the Prost Plan was represen-
ted by central and local administrations. pek Akpnar, stanbulu (Yeniden) na Etmek: 1937 Prost
Plan, in Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar, 107-124; and pek Akpnar, The Rebuilding of Istanbul After the Plan
of Henri Prost, 19371960: From Secularization to Turkish Modernization (PhD Dissertation, University
College London, 2003).
65

Studying the experience of the planning of stanbul by foreign ex-
perts may give a broader understanding of the close links between Turk-
ish politics of the early Republican years and urbanization process in
stanbul and can contribute both to the historiography of Turkish plan-
ning and urbanization in general.
The remaking of the imperial center

David Morley and Kevin Robins have eloquently written on the diversi-
ty and cultural richness of cosmopolitan imperial cities.14 The Ottoman
Empire exemplified this with a multi-ethnic character throughout its
existence.15 stanbul, with its multilingual and multiethnic urban struc-
ture, had features of a Mediterranean and Middle Eastern city, which
Ira Lapidus describes as a city with back alleys, winding streets, cul-
de-sacs, and private inner courtyards.16 Similarly, Lila Leontidou argues
that popular spontaneity and creativity have had an important influ-
ence on the character of urban development of Mediterranean cities.17
Elsewhere, she mentions that Mediterranean cities were characterized
by anti-planning attitudes, which undermined functional land-use sepa-
ration with a patchwork-like cityscape and a fragmented, disorderly
urban fabric.18 Similarly, Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins refer to the
fundamental nature of such disorder in the urban culture of Mediter-
ranean cities.19 In stanbul, adopted from the Ottoman and Byzantine
administrative structure, this spatial disorder was based neither on in-
come nor social status. The determinants of spatial differentiation were
religious and ethnic. Regarding legal rights in the Islamic city, Stefanos
Yerasimos introduces the lack of public open space in the Ottoman city
and the fact that cul-de-sacs were the main architectural-urban ele-
ments defining the mahalle structure.20 The first census of 1829 noted
the number of inhabitants as 359,000. Zeynep elik depicts the historic
city within the Byzantine fortifications as neglected, and points out that
large number of neighborhoods being left un-rebuilt after the destruc-
14 David Morley and Kevin Robins, Spaces of Identity, Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural
Boundaries (London: Routledge, 1995).
15 Andrew Mango, Atatrk (London: John Murray, 1999), 7.
16 Ira Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1967), 3.
17 Lila Leontidou, The Mediterranean City in Transition: Social and Urban Development (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1990).
18 Lila Leontidou, Postmodernism and the City: Mediterranean Versions, Urban Studies 30, (1993):
951-954.
19 Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins, Istanbul between Civilization and Discontent, New Perspectives on
Turkey 1, no. 5-6 (1994): 58.
20 Yerasimos, Tanzimatn Kent Reformlar zerine, in Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl Kentleri, 1-18.
66 pek Akpnar
tion of fires.21 In fact, the reconstruction of the old districts of stanbul

had been undertaken several times since the mid-nineteenth century by

Ottoman governments. They aimed at a reorganization of urban space
in conformity with the image of contemporary European cities by the
opening of wide avenues, plazas and squares but especially by the reg-
ularization of the urban fabric according to what Mustafa Reit Paa
called the rules of geometry.22
These planning activities focused on drawing up maps of the city and
making urban scheme recommendations, preparing definitive regula-
tions and creating the organization required to do so.23 Plans outlining
the existing structure of the city as well as recommendations for recon-
struction were drawn up by foreign experts. Influenced by urban devel-
opments in Western Europe (Vienna, Paris, and London), the Ottoman
state invited foreign experts to implement architectural and urban pro-
jects for stanbul in the name of the modernization of both the city and
the society.24 In this respect, Helmuth von Moltke (1839), Luigi Storari
(1856), Marie de Launay (1864), Ferdinand Joseph Arnodin (1900), and
Joseph Antoine Bouvard (1908) prepared urban designs, along Hauss-
mannian lines for the development of the city (figure 1). Invitations to
planners who had never seen stanbul and whose experience was limited
to European work occasionally resulted in recommendations driven by
aesthetic concernsthe Beautiful Istanbul plan designed by the chief
architect of Paris, Joseph Antoine Bouvard, exemplified this. These pro-
posals could not be implemented in the topography of stanbul, formed
of hills and valleys, nor could the necessary investments be made by a
state already in decline. In terms of urbanism, the plans were fragmented
in nature and lacked holistic concern for the entire city. The large-scale
applications of European capitalism entered the city through the pub-
lic transport system with the adoption of new technologies and materi-
als. Solutions to problems were developed in line with major European
principles even though these solutions remained fragmented. The mod-
ernizing projects of the nineteenth century could be interpreted as an
official effort to restructure society and the administration of the state,
21 Zeynep elik, The Remaking of Istanbul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 49-81.
22 Mustafa Reit Paa, the Ottoman ambassador to London and one of the leading figures of the Tan-
zimat reforms, used the term first in a letter he wrote to Sultan Abdlmecit explaining the necessity
of reconstructing the Ottoman capital. There he elaborated different Western models of settlement,
comparing the British to the French in particular.
23 The first map of stanbul based on contemporary and methodical measurements was drawn by the
engineer F. Kauffer between 1776 and 1778. The first plan that outlined traditional district layouts was
done by the British planner Melling in 1802.
24 elik, Remaking of Istanbul, 73-78, 82-103.
67

Figure 1: The Moltke Plan of Istanbul, Helmuth von Moltke (1839).
Source: Courtesy of Atatrk Library, stanbul Municipality Archive.
which had been weakened by nationalistic movements within the em-

pire and had started to lose lands, especially in the Balkans. The un-
executed network of roads could be seen as a symbol of state power at
the center of the empire, reminiscent of nineteenth century creation of
Tsarist Petersburg and Napoleonic Paris. Nevertheless, the rebuilding
of the imperial capital had to wait for new projects by foreign experts in
the Republican era.
After the proclamation of Ankara as the new capital of the nation-
state in October 1923, stanbuls illustrious history as the capital of three
empires came to an end. Ankara, in the middle of Anatolia, became the
physical and symbolic theatrical stage for all governmental activities
and a series of secularizing cultural and administrative reforms. Fur-
thermore, Austrian, French and German architects and planners were
invited to Turkey in the hope of creating a universal vocabulary in the
field of architecture and urbanism. The invitation of foreign experts can
also be viewed as a continuation of Ottoman foreign know-how transfer.
Yet, within the political context of the establishment of the nation-state,
68 pek Akpnar
the presence of foreign experts gained new and local meanings.25 With
the passion for a new citizen, a new society, and a modern urban life in
a new built environment, foreign architects and planners saw Turkey as
an experimental laboratory to express themselves in architectural as well
as urban fields, as Kaan Gner has argued.26
In the meantime, the Ottomans cosmopolitan capital, or Pay- Taht,
remained largely excluded from mainstream Turkish politics. The impe-
rial city first lost its political power and its population, then came a de-
cline in its economy and the under-development of its hinterland.27 In
1923, two demographic groups could be identified in the city: Muslims
and non-Muslims, indicating a cosmopolitan and national stanbul. Yet,
the departure of non-Muslim entrepreneurs, bankers, and merchants in
the Republican era affected the economic life of the city directly. For-
eign capital was no longer active. Meanwhile, the modernizing policies
of the Turkish state created a national bourgeoisie.28 The Pay- Taht lost
not only its government buildings and its non-Muslim merchant citi-
zens but also its name; from 1926, the post office only accepted letters
addressed to stanbul, and those to Constantinople were sent back.29 In
the meantime, the city remained Turkeys primary international harbor,
but with an inadequate municipal system, and its hygiene and urban
transportation, dating from the last century, needed to be developed. As
for the population, the most important feature was its trend towards
decline starting from World War I and continuing into the Republican
eraa trend that came to influence a series of population projections
for the future of the city.30 The traditional ethnic urban structure of
25 For a broader recent discussion, see Esra Akcan, Architecture of Translation: Germany Turkey and the
Modern House (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012); and Duygu Kksal, Cumhuriyet deolojisi
ve Estetik Modernizm: Baltacolu, Yeni Zamanlar ve Bauhaus, in Bauhaus: Modernlemenin Tasarm,
eds. Ali Artun and Esra Ali avuolu (stanbul: letiim Yaynlar, 2009), 241-259.
26 For this discussion of the role of Modernism in Turkey, I am indebted to Kaan Gner who pas-
sed away during the writing up of his PhD thesis at SOAS, University of London. The thesis is now
forthcoming for publication in 2014. K. Gner, Modern Trk Sanatnn Douu: Konstrktivist Trkiye
Cumhuriyetinde Kltr ve deoloji (stanbul: Kaynak Yaynlar, 2014).
27 lhan Tekeli and Selim lkin, 1923 Ylnda stanbulun ktisadi Durumu ve stanbul Ticaret ve Sanayi
Odas ktisat Komisyonu Raporu, in Bildiriler, Tarih Boyunca stanbul Semineri, (stanbul, 1989), 271-
275. And in 1922, in stanbul, out of 4267 commercial institutions, 1202, in other words 28 percent
belonged to Muslim Turks. Ahmet Hamdi Baars research on the Turkish Commerce, 1922; quoted in
Murat Koraltrk, Cumhuriyetin lk Yllarnda stanbul, Toplumsal Tarih 59, November (1998): 38-42.
28 alar Keyder, Whither the Project of Modernity? Turkey in the 1990s in Rethinking Modernity and
National Identity in Turkey, eds. Sibel Bozdoan and Reat Kasaba (Seattle: the University of Wash-
ington Press, 1997), 37-51, 39; alar Keyder, Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. (Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 11.
29 Philip Mansel, Constantinople, City of the Worlds Desire, 14531924 (London: John Murray, 1995), 416.
30 The reason of the decline from 1914 to 1922 was partly caused by the losses in war, and partly by the
emigrations of non-Muslims. From 1924 to 1927, the increase was caused by the migrs to Turkey.
69

mahalles and a mixture of Greek, Armenian, Jewish and Turkish popula-
tions, continued in the Republican period, particularly in the historical
peninsula. In 1928, an administrative reorganization reduced the num-
ber of mahalles to 114, and a new cadastral plan was implemented. Thus,
various mahalles disappeared, and new boundaries were drawn, but the
ethnic-religious mahalles remained as basic building-blocks of the ur-
ban fabric.31 The class-based differentiation of the urban fabric, in its
turn, started to appear in the years around World War II and became
stronger in the postwar era.32
In this context, the main claim was that stanbul had been neglected.
In fact, after the proclamation of Ankara as the new capital, descriptions
of stanbul shifted from magnificent and glorious to decadent and
Byzantine. The city was seen as mainly the home of religious ethnic
groups and Levantines33 as well as of the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph
(the spiritual leader of the Muslims); that is, all the decadent elements
of the Turkish society.34 The proclamation of Ankara as the new capital
not only marked a break from the Greek city but also an abandonment
of the Ottoman past. Because of this anti-Greek and anti-Ottoman dis-
course, because Atatrk did not visit the city until 1927, and because of
the lack of major public investment in the city until the 1930s, research-
ers have argued that stanbul was being neglected and seen this as a sign
of the public indifference of the new state. For instance, Tony Meats
writes that with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subse-
quent removal of government to Ankara, a vacuum was created in the
heart of the old city which has never been filled.35
Nevertheless, the 1920s was a period of preparation for city maps,
and topographic and geographic studies began with Jacques Pervititch, a
French topographer, being commissioned to prepare the cadastral maps
of stanbul, and execute a task to cover three districts of the city; the his-
31 Alain Duben and Cem Behar, Istanbul Households, 18801940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 30-31.
32 In the census of 1935, 30 percent of the population were non-Muslim and 25 percent had a native
language other than Turkish in stanbul. See S. Yerasimos, Azgelimilik Srecinde Trkiye (stanbul:
Belge, 1974), 880.
33 Word used to describe people born from a marriage of a European and a non-Muslim stanbulite.
They formed a major part in the demographic structure in stanbul during the Ottoman Empire and
in the first decades of Republic.
34 Cyril Auffret, Istanbul, Fin de Sicle (Grenoble: Universit de Pierre Mendes, 1994), 65; Feroz Ahmad,
The Making of the Modern Turkey (London: Routledge, 1993), 54; Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of
Modern Turkey (New York: University of Oxford Press, 1968), 261; Keyder, Istanbul, 11; Mansel, Con-
stantinople, 424.
35 Tony Meats, Constantinople, otherwise called Stanbole the Beautiful, Architectural Review 168, no.
1001 (1980): 38-45, 41.
70 pek Akpnar
torical peninsula, Beyolu-Pera, Beikta, and skdar (19261928).

Although some critics think that the new state was not concerned with
the development of stanbul after the proclamation of Ankara as the
capital, successive efforts to urbanize the city show this to be a misinter-
pretation. It was not neglect, but there was a change of emphasis from
the Ottoman era, when stanbul had been given privileged treatment.
The city became part of intensive national planning following the rapid
administrative reforms between 1923 and 1929 and the preparation of
new acts on urbanization in the 1930s. Moreover, contrary to the opin-
ion of critics who have claimed that President Mustafa Kemal Atatrk
neglected stanbul, his interest in the city was often obvious in his decla-
rations:
stanbul, located on two continents, is the jewel in the crown for Tur-
key. This is a city in the heart of all citizens of the country.36
Just as for other reforms of the nation-state in technological and social

fields, urban planning projects played a unique role in the modernization
movement in the early Republican years. With the aim of establishing
adequate transportation facilities, public hygiene, and the needs of the
industrial age of the West at the turn of the new century, the founders of
the state regarded town planning as an effective tool for modernization.
In the 1930s, with a cosmopolitan population of approximately 700,000
inhabitants (one quarter of whom were non-Muslim), stanbul was the
largest harbor, a major commercial and industrial center in Turkey, and
ready for a master plan. Following the competition for the planning of
Ankara won by German planner Hermann Jansen in 1928, another ur-
ban planning competition was organized for stanbul, the allegedly ne-
glected imperial capital.
Continuity in invitation of European experts: The international urban

design competition of 1933
In the 1930s, the attention of Turkeys politicians shifted back to the
imperial capital. This was a time when the government prepared a set
of new acts on urbanization paving the way for the master plans not
only for Anatolia, but also for stanbul. Inspired by European municipal
management models, the Act of Municipalities of 1930 systematized
municipal governance, with an exception in stanbul where the offices of
36 Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, quoted in Gzelleen stanbul, XX. Yzyl (stanbul: stanbul Maarif Matbaas,
1944); n.p.; also in Cumhuriyet Devrinde stanbul (stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, 1949), n.p.
71

mayor and governor were combined, but their administrative body and
counsellors remained separate.37
With this specific administrative system, stanbul welcomed foreign
experts to assist in the modernization of the urban field. An act of Par-
liament was drafted for a competition to be held in order select a master
plan for stanbul.38 Programs were devised to hold planning competi-
tions for foreign planners, and budgets were allocated to reward the win-
ners. In 1932, the Governorship-Municipality of stanbul organized an
urban design competition for civilizing of stanbul. The following year,
the municipality of stanbul invited four foreign city planners, one Ger-
man and three French, to submit proposals. Initially Henri Prost was
also invited but declined because of his post in Paris as the head plan-
ner of the city.39 Following his decline of the invitation, on the advice of
the French Embassy in Ankara, the municipality invited Jacques-Henri
Lambert, who was also involved in the planning of Paris (with Prost),
New York, and Chicago.40 Another French expert who was invited was
Donat-Alfred Agache (18751959), secretary for the Association of
French Urbanist Architects. Graduate of architecture from the cole de
Beaux-Arts, and also a graduate of sociology of Collge libre des sci-
ences sociales in Paris, he had prepared the master plans of Buenos Aires
and Rio de Janeiro, won second price in the urban planning competi-
tion for the planning of Canberra in 1911, and, with Henri Prost at the
Muse social, had helped Eugne Hnard with the Paris master plan.
And finally, the German planner Hermann Ehlgtz, a member of the
Academy of Urban Planners in Germany, and professor at the Technical
School of Berlin, was invited. He was the author of the master plan for
Essen in Germany.
In terms of urban historiography, it is important to point out that
this invitation should be regarded as a consultancy process rather than
a professional competition. In the invitation letter of 26 February 1933
sent by the stanbul Municipality, it was stated that this was not a plan-
ning competition, that the target was simply to have the opinions of
experts, and that the municipality reserved the right to choose to work
37 stanbul was governed by an appointed ehremini (mayor) between 1923 and 1933, and between 1930
and 1957 by an appointed governor-mayor, then the offices were separated.
38 Law dated 8 February 1933. Republic of Turkey, Directorate of Archives (file: 835, source code 30.1.0.00,
location no: 81.533.5).
39 IFA/AA archive, Fonds Prost, HP, ARC, 30/43.
40 Another speculative argument is that it was Prost who recommended Lamberts invitation. See Aron
Angel, Projets et amenagements urbains Istanbul de 1933 nos jours, Lettre dinformation de
lobservation urbain d Istanbul 2, (1992): 2-4.
72 pek Akpnar
with one expert.41 Thus, three planners came to stanbul in 1933 for a
general survey of one month and submitted their work to the municipal-
ity. Planners were given maps of the city, but there was no program and
no data to share with them: the lack of systematic urban analysis of the
built environment and statistical data would lead to the partial frame-
work of their results. A fire at the municipality building and the reloca-
tion of the archives have made it difficult to locate visual data on the
participants projects today. The drawings are missing, but the reports
explaining the urban scenario for stanbul have survived as they were
published in the 1930s. Before discussing their reports and proposals,
though, it is important to give their background and the intellectual at-
mosphere surrounding the modern planning discipline.
An important influence upon these urbanists in their design ap-
proach to historical cities, and on Ehlgtz in particular, was Camillo
Sitte (18431903), whose analysis of the artistic and urban character
of old European cities and towns (1889) was intended to discover com-
mon urban and architectural principals since Roman times across a wide
geography.42 Sittes research into an inner structure and a hidden pat-
tern proceeded by means of analyses of historical cities, especially Italian
ones and investigated the spatial relationship of urban elements: public
squares, streets and their sequence, and the continuity of space and time
in the given settlements. One should also mention the continuing influ-
ence of Baron Haussmanns Paris in terms of a powerful visual impact
on French urban designers. It was, however, above all the intellectual
atmosphere of the Muse social, the birthplace of the Association of
French Urbanist Architects, that provided a strong theoretical basis for
the formation of French professionals. Eugne Hnard (18491923),
an important French urbanist and the president of the urban sub-com-
mittee of the Muse social, had a particularly direct impact on the ca-
reer of young urbanist architects.43 The Muse social was established on
31 August 1894 in Paris with the objective of creating the institutions
and social organizations to develop the moral and material situation of
the workers. It provided an atmosphere of debate among philosophers,
philanthropists and hygienists. The Muse socials urban sub-committee,
the section dhygine et rurale, was established in January 1908 under the
41 IFA/AA archive, Fonds Prost, HP, ARC, 30/43.

42 For the English version of Sittes Der Stadtebau nach seinen kunstlerischen Grundsatzen, see City Plan-
ning according to Artistic Principles, in Camillo Sitte: the Birth of Modern City Planning, eds. George
Roseborough Collins and Christiane Crasemann Collins (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), 5-7, 248-251.
43 For a broader reading, see Jean-Louis Cohen, From Grand Landscapes to Metropolises: Henri Prost,
in From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prosts Planning of Istanbul (1936
1951), eds. Cana Bilsel and Pierre Pinon (stanbul: stanbul Research Institute, 2010), 49-98.
73

presidency of Hnard, making the institution of central importance in
debates on French urbanism:
Everything directly concerning the family life of workers (housing,

gardens, open public spaces, nutrition) will be topics of primary
importance in research, interviews, and efforts in public action and
propaganda.44
The institute became an intellectual platform for a better future envi-

ronment: its debates concentrated on the urbanization of the new soci-
ety and the transformation of modern needs with industrial and tech-
nological as well as social and political developments. This milieu had an
impact on many French professionals, and Agache, Lambert and Prost
were no exceptions.45
Having been concerned with the necessity of rebuilding cities, archi-
tects and urbanists participated in the activities of the urban sub-com-
mittee of the Muse social where Hnards studies of Paris, published
between 1903 and 1909, became a guideline for the urban problems of
Paris.46 Based mainly on the ideas of Hnard, the question of espaces
libres was a basic urban issue in the discussion platform of the Muse
social. In this framework, such free spaces were seen as an essential ele-
ment for the public well-being, and their decrease in the Parisian spatial
context was harshly criticized in Hnards articles. Hnard demanded
the increase of espaces libres in Paris for urban beautification and public
hygiene, while conserving the ancient settlements and monuments of
the city.47 The conservation of not just an individual building but a to-
tal historical built environment was defended. Having taken part in the
planning team, Agache and Prost both had their careers started under
the direct guidance of Hnard.48 In short, hygiene, regeneration of the
living conditions of the old city centers in line with social and ethical
concerns, fighting against wild capitalism and speculative developments
44 Le Muse social, Annales 13, no. 1 (1908): 56.

45 J. L. Cohen, Henri Prost, in Dictionnaire de larchitecture du XXe sicle, ed. J. P. Midant, Paris: F. Hazan
Institut francais darchitecture, 1996, 731.
46 See Eugne Hnard, tudes sur les transformations de Paris, (Paris: lEquerre, 1982).
47 Ibid., 17. Because Hnard was ill, as experienced young architects, Alfred Agache and Henri Prost and
several other young professionals were appointed to serve under him to prepare the first comprehen-
sive long range city improvement and extension plan for Paris and its surrounding region, including
an analysis of the relevant legislation. It is not easy to determine how much actual work Hnard did
on this plan prepared under his authority, according to his principles, and ultimately published under
his name. The teams proposals were not accepted by the Conseil municipal until 1913.
48 For a detailed reading, see Peter M. Wolf, Eugne Hnard and the Beginning of Urbanism in Paris,
19001914 (The Hague: Ando, 1968) and Cohen, Grand Landscapes to Metropolises.
74 pek Akpnar
of real estate, and holistic planning were the main guidelines for the
planning of the future of cities. In response to the proposals of the team
and the campaign of the Muse social, the first French law on urbaniza-
tion was passed in 1919. The law called for a master plan for every town
of more than ten thousand people in order to regulate growth and en-
able embellissementto determine the location and character of all open
spaces (public parks, gardens and squares) as well as of monuments and
public service buildings.49 The urban planning operations carried out
in French colonial cities were also closely linked to their counterparts in
France. In this framework, the beautification based on aesthetics and
politics through espaces libres was closely related to a series of emerg-
ing urban issues: historic preservation problems in unsanitary districts,
poorly housed populations, the building of large housing projects in the
immediate suburbs, and policies regarding shanty towns. Zeynep e-
lik mentions that the technological, social, and aesthetic lessons learned
from city planning practices previously undertaken in French colonies
played a primary role in devising official policies for urban development
in both metropolitan France and outre-mer. She adds that the colonies
were the true laboratories of modern planning.50 The issue of beauti-
fication including aesthetics and politics would later be used in projects
commissioned by Agache, Lambert and Prost.
Apart from Eugne Hnard and the Muse social, John Ruskin and
William Morriss call for a return to nature and finally Ebenezer How-
ards garden city (particularly in his book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to
Real Reform) were not unknown to the invited foreign experts. It is im-
portant to indicate that their modern planning principles were applied
in parallel to those of their contemporaries in CIAM (Congrs Inter-
national dArchitecture Moderne). Thus, the Muse social with its prin-
ciples in modern planning (rationality, functional zoning, and hygiene)
might be viewed as a preliminary step in the formation of CIAM in the
1930s. The combination of Beaux-Arts embellissement with CIAMs ob-
jective of spreading the principles of the Modern Movement that would
focus on all the main fields of architecture (landscape, urbanism, and
industrial design, among others) set up a vision for a new urban design
for the imperial city, as pronounced by Jean Gallatti.51 CIAM also saw
49 Louis Hautecur, Henri Prost la Villa Medicis, 19021907, in Luvre de Henri Prost: Architecture
et urbanisme (Paris: Acadmie dArchitecture, 1960), 11-30, 20-22.
50 For detailed archival research, see Zeynep elik, Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations: Algiers under
French Rule (Berkeley: University of California, 1997) and mparatorluk, Mimarlk ve Kent, trans. Z. Kl
(stanbul: Garanti Kltr A.., 2012).
51 For a broader discussion, see Jean Gallatti, Un Grand Urbaniste Franais, H. Prost, Bulletin Officiel
du Touring et Automobil de Turquie (February 1954).
75

architecture as an economic and political tool that could be used to im-
prove the world through the design of buildings and urban planning.
These tendencies are also reflected in the plan reports of the foreign
experts for stanbul.
The invited experts also explained their ideas in the light of modern
planning principles through lectures in the universities during their stay
in stanbul. Their reports were evaluated by a technical committee and
finally submitted to the jury (which included politicians).52 As these re-
ports were prepared in one month, the shortness of the resulting study is
rather understandable. Three of the plan proposals concentrated on ur-
ban issues such as enlargement of the national and international harbors
and stations, locations for the growing industries and trade centers, and
the solutions for the city traffic demanded by the local authority. They
also recommended zones for housing and green areas as well as alterna-
tive methods to connect the historical peninsula and the Galata region.
In Grand Istanbul: Un programme durbanization, Agache aimed at
the transformation of stanbul into a homogenous city by linking its
regions with a network of roads. With a background in both urbanism
and sociology, and accepting urbanism as a social philosophy, he insisted
on the rational analysis of demography, sociology, and history. Focusing
on zoning, a network of roads, transportation, railway stations, ports,
airports, public transportation, hygiene, recreation, and conservation of
historic sites, he projected stanbul as a large economic national and re-
gional hub. He spatialized his concept with the construction of three
bridges on the Golden Horn, connecting residential and commercial
areas in particular. Supporting automobile-based transportation, he
also proposed a rail system under the city. He envisaged developing the
stanbul port along the southern shore of the Golden Horn, where it
had been located historically, and reserved the northern shores for an
industrial zone. His idea of preservation was based on the conservation
of monuments and the clearance of their surroundings, similar to the
spirit of his period.
Similarly to Agaches proposal, Lambert aimed at the creation of an
economic center of 2.5 million people in the region. With a new network
of roads (44 miles of main roads, and 22 of secondary roads), he project-
ed links between old neighborhoods and new ones. He also proposed a
52 Alfred Agache, Byk stanbul Tanzim ve mar Program (stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, 1934); Hermann
Ehlgtz, stanbul ehrinin Umumi Plan (stanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaas, 1934); Jacques Henri Lambert,
mar Yurdu (stanbul: Milli Neriyat Yurdu, 1934). For the jurys comment, see stanbul ehir Plan:
mar Komisyonu Raporu, Arkitekt 50, no. 2 (1935): 33-60; these were republished in Niyazi Duranay
et al., Cumhuriyetten bu Yana stanbulun Planlamas, Mimarlk 7 (1972): 65-118.
76 pek Akpnar
seafront road (like the one in Aurics scheme) along the Marmara coast.
Industry, culture, and sports as well as tourism had become major axes
of the modern urban center. He aimed to relocate the harbor to the 22
km long Marmara coast (he indicated a location between Kumkap and
Bakrky, as in the Byzantine period). Extending the harbor area to the
west, he proposed the relocation of the industrial zone away from the
historical peninsula, and added a railway system and a large plaza sym-
bolizing the economic hub. Connected to the seafront via terraces, Lam-
bert also projected a public garden entitled Jardin publique de la cit des
arts near the archeological site of the Hippodrome. A sports center at
Yenibahe, an archeological museum in Sultanahmet, and the extension
of stanbul University in Beyazt were the main aspects of his proposal.
In terms of preservation of the old fabric and evaluation of the urban
aesthetic, Ehlgtzs proposal differed considerably from the two previ-
ous projects prepared by French experts. He focused on economic prin-
ciples, general circulation, zoning, new housing in the urban periphery,
and the relocation of the harbor. Aiming at the preservation of the urban
silhouette, the German planner proposed a smooth transition between
urban zones and an improvement of existing roads while designating
Haydarpaa as the new port zone. The most important long-term strat-
egy of his plan was the proposal of a legislative structure in urban plan-
ning.
In short, all three planners emphasized the beauty of the city and
aimed to enhance it. Conservation of monuments and natural beauty
was another important issue for all three. The importance of finding
an effective solution for urban transportation and hygiene issues can-
not be denied. Apart from the content, their rhetoric reflected the prin-
ciples of the modern city planning of the twentieth century. Although
hygiene, modern needs, economic solutions, and protection of the ur-
ban character of the old site were their primary common aims, Agache
and Lambert proposed more demolitions than Ehlgtz in historic ar-
eas. Despite Hnards influence on urban embellissement, by means of
the realization of hygiene, espaces libres and conservation, the projects of
the French experts aimed to modernize stanbul by large urban demoli-
tions. It is important to state that the selection of the location of the
port had become another determinant factor in the jurys decision. A
sub-committee studied three proposals, and chose the most rational, re-
alistic project proposed by the German planner. Ehlgtzs project offered
attainable solutions without changing the course of roads in the imperial
city, merely enlarging them. The proposals of the French experts were
seen as expensive. Moreover, their reports were rather confusing, aris-
77

ing possibly from basic translation issues and overuse of adjectives in
their descriptions, compared to Ehlgtzs simpler rhetoric. In the light of
these criticisms from the subcommittee, the jury chose Ehlgtzs work.
For reasons that are not clear, however, Ehlgtzs planning proposal was
put aside and not implemented.53 The modernization of the city would
wait until Prosts arrival.
In the mid-1930s, Dr. Martin Wagners name was put forward as
director of the Department of Architecture at the Academy of Fine
Arts in stanbul.54 During the political turmoil in Germany, Wagner
moved to stanbul to teach at the Academy.55 Known as a red architect
and expert on low-cost social housing, Wagner was the head planner
of Berlin, and an expert on prefabricated housing. When he resigned
from Werkbund along with Walter Gropius, he was dismissed from the
municipality and banned from working in the field of architecture in his
country. Within a year, the stanbul municipality invited Wagner to ad-
vise on the planning of the city, concentrating on the analysis of financial
resources and the relationship of the city with the region. Wagner came
to stanbul in 1935, lectured at the Academy, and published a series of
articles for Arkitekt on stanbuls urban problems, transportation, and
population, and worked on its urban plans.56 Having understood the
importance of taking the regional environment into account and the re-
lationship between social issues and town planning, Wagner envisaged
the planning of stanbul along with the entire Marmara region, focus-
ing on the economic dimension and urban construction. In his Report
of 1936, he discussed the sociological aspects of urbanization shaping
the imperial city. He presented a systematic analysis of urban problems
supported by maps and graphics. His most significant result was not
projecting population growth in stanbula false projection of the ur-
53 See Tekeli, Development of the Istanbul; moreover Angel argues that Atatrk insisted on working with
Henri Prost on the urbanization of stanbul. There is a speculative reading that Atatrk insisted having
Henri Prost as the planner of stanbul. One might argue that the President wanted to counterbalance
the German influence in Ankara by the invitation of a French expert. Cf., Akpnar, stanbulu (Yeniden)
na Etmek.
54 Hans Poelzig, preparing for his departure to Turkey, recommended Wagner to the Turkish authorities.
Kaan Gner also indicates the role of Walter Gropius in the invitation. See Gner, Modern Trk Sana-
tnn Douu.
55 Experts were also invited to contribute to the modernization of education. Ernst Egli and Bruno Taut
played important roles in the establishment of architectural education in the city. See Artun et al.,
Bauhaus, Modernlemenin Tasarm; Oya Atalay Franck, Bir Modernlik Aray: Ernst Egli ve Trkiye
(19271940), in Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar, 253-262; and O. A. Franck, Architektur und Politik: Ernst Egli
und die trkische Moderne 19271940 (Zrich, GTA Verlag, 2012).
56 Martin Wagners primary articles are: stanbul ehrinin Dzeltilmesi Meselesi, Arkitekt 8 (1936):
217-218; stanbulun Seyrsefer Meselesi, Arkitekt 9 (1936): 252-255; stanbul Havalisinin Plan,
Arkitekt 10-11 (1936): 301-306; and stanbul Havalisinin Plan 2, Arkitekt 12 (1936): 333-337.
78 pek Akpnar
ban future.57 In the late 1930s, Wagners population analysis of stanbul,

projecting a city of a maximum of 3.5 million inhabitants in the future,

would misguide Prosts planning.
Reports depicting the importance of natural and cultural heritage as
well as greenery and public areas focused on the urban transport issue
and the location of the harbor. Yet, neither Elgtzs competition-win-
ning plan nor Wagners 1935 Plan of Istanbul and Environs were ever
put into practice. The competing projects of the three experts as well as
Wagners study would nevertheless create a basis for Prosts design. The
discussions of harbor and roads, in particular, would provide the guide-
lines for Prost, and their modernist aims might thus have suggested the
design principles for his master plan of stanbul.
The rebuilding of stanbul: the Prost Plan of 1937

In 1936, Henri Prost, head urbanist of metropolitan Paris, was invited
a second time by the Governor-Mayor of stanbul58 to prepare a settle-
ment plan for the Yalova thermal baths, including the presidential resi-
dence and its surroundings. Prost arrived in stanbul in the summer of
1935. He was asked to work as a councilor for the stanbul municipality
on the urban planning of the imperial city. In 1936, he signed a contract
with the administration. Prost played an important role between 1936
and 1950 in stanbul as the head urban planner of the municipality. It
was a political period marked by single-party rule. Having submitted
the first master planLe Plan Directeurof the city in 1937, Prost
projected a design visualized by wide boulevards connecting functional
zones with a theme of gzelletirme (embellissement/beautification).59
The Prost Plan was partly executed during the French designers stay in
stanbul between 1936 and 1950. Between 1951 and 1956, the plan was
revised by a group of Turkish experts. Prosts plan also guided massive
urban demolitions and the implementation of a network of roads dur-
ing the premiership of Adnan Menderes between 1956 and 1960 (Prost
was re-invited in 1957 by Menderes along with the Italian architect
Luigi Piccinato and the German planner Hans Hgg). The plan contin-
ued to provide some basic principles for Mayor Bedreddin Dalan in the
mid-1980s. Thus, although Prosts plans were superseded in 1950, they
57 Martin Wagner, stanbul Havalisinin Plan: Der Landesplan von Istanbul. Report of 11 December 1936
(stanbul, 1937).
58 Some sources claim that the invitation was made by President Atatrk himself. Theo Leveau, Istanbul,
in Luvre de Henri Prost: Architecture et Urbanisme (Paris: Acadmie dArchitecture, 1960), 183-208.
59 Henri Prost, TC stanbul Belediyesi, stanbul zah Eden Rapor, 15.10.1937 (stanbul: stanbul Belediye
Matbaas, 1938) and Istanbul Hakknda Notlar, 1937 (stanbul: stanbul Belediye Matbaas, 1938).
79

formed the basis of implementation for over two decades, and, in some
respects, continued to do so up to the end of the twentieth century.
Similarly to the case of the competition of 1933, neither Prost nor
his master plan have been recognized for the primary role they deserve
in Turkish urban history. The plan has generally been dismissed as an
ordinary beautification project based on reminiscences of Western Eu-
ropean cities, the city-beautiful type. Nevertheless, the powerful net-
work of Haussmanian roads connecting large Greco-Roman espaces li-
bres did not only mean the beautification of spatiality in the old city, but
also became a political tool to materialize the nation-states ideology.
Henri Prost was a graduate of the cole nationale de Beaux-Arts
in Paris. He received the Prix de Rome in 1902, where he stayed be-
tween 1903 and 1907 at the institute of the Villa Medici (LAcadmie de
France in Rome). With the permission of the Sultan, he also conducted
a survey of the Hagia Sophia in the Ottoman capital, where he stayed
between 19041905 and 19061907. In 1910, Prost won the inter-
national design competition for Antwerp.60 In 1924, he was invited by
the Mayor of zmir for the urban planning of the third-largest Turkish
city.61 Similarly to Agache and Lambert, his Beaux-Arts architectural
education possibly gave him a deeper understanding of aesthetic issues
and design concepts. Yet, besides their studies of antique sites, graduates
were also concerned with issues such as the organization of cities and
the techniques of new urbanization, with its interest in social and po-
litical problems. The continuing influence of Baron Haussmanns Paris
as well as Eugne Hnards, along with Camillo Sittes approaches were
familiar to them.
Prost, an acknowledged leading expert on planning cities both in
the Western core and in the French colonial cities, and with consider-
able practical experience, came to stanbul as the direct agent of the na-
60 During this period, Prost frequented the Muse social (19101913). He prepared projects for Morocco
(19141924), the reconstruction of the Cte Varoise (19241926), and the master plan of Algiers with
Rene Danger and Maurice Rotival (1931). After the execution of his colonial designs, he was appointed
director of city planning for Paris and its surrounding region (19281934). Moreover, he was the
head urban planner of stanbul during 19361951. He was a professor at the Academy of Beaux Arts,
stanbul (19401943), the director of the LEcole Speciale dArchitecture in Paris (19291959) and a
member of the French institute of city planners. See Gwendolyn Wright, The Politics of Design in French
Colonial Urbanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); J. Royer, Istanbul, in LOeuvre de
Henri Prost: Architecture et Urbanisme, (Paris: LAcadmie dArchitecture, 1960), 143-180; and P. Pinon,
Henri Prost: Paristen Romaya, Fastan stanbula, in mparatorluk Bakentinden Cumhuriyetin
Modern Kentine: Henri Prostun stanbul Planlamas, 19361951, eds. C. Bilsel and P. Pinon (stanbul
Aratrmalar Enstits, stanbul, 2010), 15-47, 39.
61 The designer declined the invitation due his post in Paris, but advised on the zmir master plan by
Ren Danger and his brother (1924). Bilsel, Ideology and Urbanism, 13-30.
80 pek Akpnar
tion state. In stanbul, the designer was asked to prepare a project for a
2,700-year-old imperial city with features common to other Mediterra-
nean cities and one that had been un-maintained and was old due to un-
planned developments over centuries.62 In the light of reports prepared
by Martin Wagner defining the citys urban problems and enumerating
the needs of its citizens,63 Prost wrote: Following the proclamation of
Ankara as the capital, stanbul lost its role of being the great imperial
center, and remained the primary harbor of the country.64 He added:
stanbul has to live a modern life, acknowledging the hygienic prob-

lems of the twentieth century city, having the benefits of all mediums
of rapid transportation and commodities of the era. She has to have
an international railway station connecting the Bosphorus to the
great European capitals.65
Prost came to stanbul 15 May 1936 and stayed until 1951, a little af-
ter the stanbul municipality terminated his contract on 27 December
1950.66 His work was performed by a team composed of Turkish and
French architects, planners, and engineers. Prost guided the design team
to work initially on the documentation of the city, for which there was
insufficient data. In the light of the initial documentation period be-
tween 1936 and 1937, Prost made a master plan, a plan de concentration
for an area of 6,000 ha, a development plan of 3,000 ha and detailed
projects for an area of 650 ha. Moreover, he prepared a bill in 1937,
which became an act for the land of stanbul. Over this relatively long
period, he prepared the master plan that directed the urbanization of
the city and produced a large number of plans, urban design projects,
research and planning reports, and notes on the planning and moderni-
zation of the historic city in general and the conservation of its monu-
ments in particular.
Prost classified his aims for the stanbul master plan in five categories:67
conservation of monuments; enlargement and adaptation of existing roads
62 Gzelleen stanbul, n.p.

63 Wagner, stanbul Havalisinin Plan, 301-306.
64 Prost, Istanbul, 84.
65 Prost, note 228, La Transformation dIstanbul: Rapports sur le Plan dAmnagement dstanbul. Unpublis-
hed reports, 8 vols, 19361949, held at the IFEA. Also cited in M. Protsenko, Henri Prost et Istanbul,
(MA Thesis, LInstitut Franais dUrbanism de Paris, 1988), 71.
66 He worked with three mayor-governors, Muhittin stnda (14 October 19284 December 1938),
Ltfi Krdar (8 December 193820 October 1949) and Fahrettin Kerim Gkay (24 October 194926
November 1957).
81

to the topographic geography; development, improvement, and mainte-
nance of unhygienic old buildings and neighborhoods without sun or air
circulation by public open spaces; implementation of zoning for economic
and hygienic purposes; and preservation and development of the urban
characteristics of stanbul, the Bosphorus, their monuments, the Golden
Horn, amlca (a hill at the Anatolian side with a complete panoramic
view of the city), the Princes Islands, Kurbaaldere (a district at the Ana-
tolian side) and the silhouette. It is interesting to observe that conservation
of the historical buildings and urban pattern was of primary importance
as they informed three Prostian aims. Prosts conservation concept in-
cluded not only individual historical buildings but also complete historical
areas in some parts of stanbul. Subsequently, he saw the preservation of
the silhouette, dominated by historical masterpieces, as of primary im-
portance.68 Prost also aimed at implementing an efficient transportation
system at both local and international levels to support the commercial
and industrial changes. Overall, Prosts aims show significant similarities
with the reports of the three planners of 1933 in terms of their emphasis
on urban transportation as well as the location of the harbor and the im-
portance given to greenery.
Having imagined stanbul as still occupying the area of the histori-
cal city, Prost prepared not a total master plan, but a plan de concentra-
tion consisting of a series of propositions for three geographic regions
of stanbul (figure 2).69 Prosts plan displayed a powerful visual conti-
nuity with Hnards plan and Haussmanian Paris, where an effective
transportation system and the dominance of auto-routes constituted the
core of his designaccompanied by the concepts of hygiene, zoning,
the limitation of urban extensions, the protection of historical sites, and
embellissement. In this regard, Prosts objectives in stanbul, presented
some similarities with his design approach to French colonial cities as
well as Paris. He proposed implementation of large boulevards over the
traditional urban pattern, where the main aim of the design was to cre-
ate an effective transportation system connecting functional zones and
introduce urban greenery for hygienic as well as social purposes.
Prosts network of roads combined with serbest sahalar70 or public
open spaces visibly connected to all parts of the city, and became the
68 Prost, Istanbul, 110.

69 Prost, TC stanbul Belediyesi, Anadolu Sahili Nazm Plann zah Eden Rapor (stanbul: stanbul Belediye
Matbaas, 1940).
70 In the Turkish translation, the term serbest sahalar introduced a new concept into Turkish urbanism and
to the space of the Turkish city, a concept that did not exist within the Turkish culture, and that initially
sounded un-scientific. It introduced the notion of liberal movement, or, in other words, freedom of
movement into the urban space, and also a connotation of multi-purpose use of the space.
82 pek Akpnar
Figure 2: The First Master Plan of Istanbul, Henri Prost, 1937.
Source: Courtesy of IFA/AA archive, HP, PHO, 30-4, 3.
most radical reform of the historical urban pattern. Prosts espaces libres
mean more than a physical visualization of squares, esplanades, play-
grounds, and recreational areas, and signify both public sphere (the
public having a place in politics) and public space (the visualization of
the administrative and legislative term public in the urban arena). In this
framework, Prost designed and executed eighteen parks for the city, lo-
cated mostly at cemeteries or sites of former fires in the historical penin-
sula. The largest and newest proposal was for the European core at Tak-
sim, where he proposed a new life scenario along the new cultural valley
from Taksim towards Nianta (figure 3). Following the demolition
of the Topu Barracks and conversion of three others into educational
buildings, a green axis surrounded by a series of public spaces for cul-
tural activities as well as sports was projected.71 Apart from the Taksim
park (Park no. 1, or Gezi Promenade), the archaeological park (Park
no. 2) was to be a major arrangement in the central historical peninsula,
71 Taksim has always been the center of stanbul. Before the general elections of 2011, Prime Minister Re-
cep Tayyip Erdoan declared his aim to reconstruct the demolished military barracks by demolishing
the park. The decision was taken behind closed doors, and when the municipality attacked peaceful
protesters at the end of May 2013, public demonstrations and the Occupy Gezi movement emerged.
83

Figure 3: The Making of a Square: Taksim. Photograph taken by Henri Prost.
Source: Courtesy of IFA/AA archive, Fonds Prost.
surrounding the site of Hagia Sophia and the Ottoman palace, Topkap.
The botanic park (Park no. 3) was another major proposal for one of the
east-west axes of the city. Apart from these three major urban projects,
he designed fifteen parks. Having seen both the natural possibilities of
Florya, a new district outside the city walls on the Marmara seafront,
and already selected as the presidential summer location, Prost pro-
posed the development of recreational and camping areas and beaches.
He recommended combining these with a new residential district close
to the airport72 and also proposed hotels for the economic development
of the area. He specified a recreational park with a yacht harbor at the
Fenerbahce peninsula on the Asiatic side to become an urban center of
everyday life.73 Apart from these relatively large-scale proposals, all cem-
eteries located in neighborhoods were to be converted into sport-fields
and/or playgrounds.
In a letter written to French military Governor Hubert Lyautey
(Prosts former client in the North African cities), he declared the status
of an urbanist to be as follows: The urbanist is responsible for express-
ing a political idea, a social idea, with the help of monuments, parks,
gardens [] The urbaniste, the powerful man, is responsible of this
transmission.74 Accustomed to working as the direct agent of the state,
Prost put Frances stamp on North Africa, and his design served as a
political tool in making of North African cities French. In his letter to
Louis Hautecur, Prost wrote: Turkey is a country rich of memories,
animated by the most vivid desire to surpass all the advanced nations
72 Prost, La Transformation dIstanbul, notes 17, 21, 24.

73 Although Prost thought of removing the military complexes from the area, this did not happen. How-
ever, these became recreational areas for military officers.
74 Prost to Governor Lyautey, n.d.; IFA/AA archive. My italics.
84 pek Akpnar
in all subjects.75 And he connected the reforms with urbanization in

stanbul: This last [language and hat] reform had really important ef-
fects and reflections on the urbanization of stanbul. The first action of
the free regime is the wish to modernize stanbul.76 Prost deliberately
linked the radical change of costumes with modernization in the urban
field. First, the nation-state modernized the physical appearance of its
citizens, then commissioned the designer to modernize the urban arena.
In this context, it was Prosts own textual and visual representations of
espaces libres that reveal the crucial link between the design and secular-
izing reforms. When journalists questioned him why he had designed
a series of parks for stanbul, he showed them photographs taken per-
sonally by himself, the urbanist. Behind these photographs, Prost noted
the importance of the eighteen parks for stanbul (figure 4).77 He de-
liberately repeated the importance of putting women and children out
of their kafes as the reason for the existence of the eighteen parks he
projected for the city.78 It was his espaces libres that made women visible
in the former Ottoman context. Thus, Prost evoked the radical transfor-
mations as a basis for his proposals in the master plan, which contained
public squares and esplanades for a mixed society.79 Thus, in the con-
text of the politics of the early Republican years, espaces libres bringing
men and women together were direct visualizations of the secular re-
forms of the state. The espaces libres directly marked the passage from an
Ottoman era based on the separation of men and women towards the
mixed society of a secular state. In other words, the context of Turkish
politics requires a new reading of Prosts design to understand the real
meaning of espaces libres in the city. Prost declared: The plans that I
drew up and that I am satisfied to see being executed considerably shake
up (bouleverser) the old stanbul.80 These spaces had to be freely ac-
cessible to all and uncontaminated by religious associations if the aims
of the new state were to be met. It is in the context of secularization
that Prosts plan made a striking contribution to the conversion of Turk-
ish society. Secularism had a significant spatial aspect in which the new
town planning was closely implicated. In their designs, both Jansen and
Prost revealed a surprisingly close relationship between secular ideology
and the urban pattern, and Prosts proposals reflected some striking sim-
75 Prost to Hautecur, 7 October 1943. IFA/AA archive.

76 Prost, Istanbul, 82-85.
77 Prosts personal notes, IFA/AA archive.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid., and Prost, Istanbul, 83.
80 Prost to Hautecur, 7 October 1943, IFA/AA archive.
85

Figure 4: The making of public space: Physicalisation of secularisation, Taksim Gezi
Park. Photograph taken by Henri Prost.
Source: IFA/AA Archive, Fonds Prost.
ilarities with the modernizing ideology of the new Republic. In short,

the espaces libres were not only decorative or spatial elements of plan-
ning, but also a platform legitimizing the reforms for women, enabling
women and men to freely enjoy a mixed public life and grow accustomed
to each other, and to allow the theoretical reforms to become visible at
both the national level (to fundamentalist-religious parts of the society)
and the international level (especially to western European countries).
They were supposed to be the manifesto of the new political power over
the past, playing an ideological role in an urban context to present its
existence, and to realize and announce a radical change in everyday life.
Prost also prepared a network of Haussmanian boulevards connect-
ing the espaces libres, similar to those in Ankara. Whatever the function-
al and rational arguments for the new spatial arrangement of stanbul,
there is no doubt that there was also an ideological aspect. The network
of roads also legitimized the existence of the new state. In this respect,
the road system combined with espaces libres corresponded to a Con-
stantinian approach for the Eastern Roman Empire. Just as Constantins
network of roads became the symbol of the separation from the West-
ern Roman Empire, so Prosts new roads signified the political objec-
86 pek Akpnar
tives of the new state. Prosts interest in the pre-Ottoman buildings and
sites and the pre-Ottoman spatial formation was very significant here in
terms of re-attaching Turkey, a former Islamic eastern society, to Euro-
pean civilization and something not exclusively Ottoman.81
At the end of six years of war, in 1943, mayor-governor Ltfi Krdar
introduced the Atatrk Boulevard as the most important element of
urban transportation and the most important accomplishment of the
urban reconstruction.82 Krdar inaugurated the Atatrk Boulevard in
1943:
Women and men have a national day of happiness today [] The

extraordinary beauties of stanbul now have a new dcor [] This is
a successful masterpiece of the Republic. We did not stop the recon-
struction of the country in these difficult days [World War II][]
We wont stop it in future years either.83
Main roads were constructed and improved; urban demolitions and

renovations took place around Msr ars and Yenicami, and in the
Beyazt Square (for Krdar, we demolished the misery which took
place84); the surroundings of Ottoman monuments were cleared; Tak-
sim Square, Barbaros and skdar squares were reconstructed; and
green areas at local level as well as playgrounds, parks/woods were
built.85 Krdar declared that he aimed to complete the urban recon-
struction in time for the 500th anniversary of the conquest of the city
in 1953.86 The state was nevertheless selective in the execution of the
plan: first of all, the Atatrk Boulevard was constructed as the main av-
enue of the city in a manner similar to other Turkish villages and towns,
with partial demolitions of 1,148 plots,87 and a large number of public
spacesespaces libres and their surrounding roads. By the late 1940s,
only part of Prosts plan had been implemented fully. In the late 1940s
and the beginning of the 1950s, architectural magazines (Arkitekt, in
particular) as well as Turkish newspapers (Cumhuriyet, in particular)
published negative evaluations of the conditions of the city with often
dramatic descriptions of inadequate transportation, ineffective munici-
81 For a broader discussion see, pek Akpnar, The Rebuilding of Istanbul.

82 Ltfi Krdar, Vali ve Belediye Reisi Dr. Ltfi Krdarn Mektubu, in Cumhuriyet Devrinde stanbul,
(stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, 1949), 8-10; 8.
84 Krdar, Vali ve Belediye Reisi, 15.
85 Ibid., 20; for details, see Gzelleen stanbul and Cumhuriyet Devrinde stanbul.
86 Ibid., 20.
87 Ibid., 9.
87

pal services (hygienic needs, fire system, water and energy supplies, etc.),
and inadequate housing supply.88 In terms of infra-structure, stanbul
also lacked modern international transportation systems (harbors and
railway stations) to compete in the financial and import-export arenas,
as well as tourism. Comparisons were made with other Eastern Medi-
terranean cities, such as Piraeus and Alexandria.89 The mayorship-gov-
ernorship was under attack for delays in the alteration program: archi-
tects, planners, and journalists supporting the modernization revealed
that stanbuls accelerating urban problems and inadequate municipal
services were becoming more apparent.
In 1950, following the DP victory in general and municipal elections,
Prost was decommissioned based on the rhetoric that the urbanist was
foreign to the city and a wish for Turkish expertise. Without altering the
main concept of the plan, the physical changes to the city were reexam-
ined by the Revision Committee of 1951to those described by Prost
(even they differed in being applied to a larger area)but the difference
was that these now came from a Turkish body of experts. Despite the
rhetoric of Turkishness against Prosts foreign identity, however, foreign
experts and companies continued to be invited whenever it was deemed
necessary.90 Moreover, the re-invitation of Prost in March 1957 was
used for the legitimization of massive urban demolitions by the govern-
ment and municipality. In the 1950s, the Menderes government con-
tinued to invite foreign experts, and presented them as leading figures
in the reconstruction process to confront public criticisms. Ironically, in
doing so, they followed the same policy as the former government. Simi-
larly to the Ottomans and the CHP in the early Republican period, the
88 For instance, Abidin Morta, Harp Sonras mar leri, Arkitekt 3, no. 165-166 (1945): 191-192; Abidin
Dilaver also wrote of stanbuls urgent need for an effective maritime line and an international harbor
in Cumhuriyet, 20 January 1950.
89 See Erturul Mentee, mar Planlar Hakknda, Mimarlk, 1949, 42-45; Akif Bazolu, stanbul
marnda Karlalan Glkler ve ikayetler, Arkitekt 4 (1950): 198-202.
90 Primarily, Patrick Abercrombie, a British town planner who prepared the London Plan of 1944, an
American firm Skidmore-Owings-Merrill-SOM, and two French firms. In 1951, SOM was invited to
prepare a report on transportation and housing problems in Turkey. Following another invitation by
the Ministry of Public Affairs, two French companies presented grand projects for stanbul, one for
the metro system and the second for a bridge over the Bosphorus. In 1954, the stanbul municipality/
governorship commissioned Patrick Abercrombie to prepare a report on Prosts plan. Following a
ten-day survey, he submitted an unpublished report for stanbul: Halen Hazrlanmakta Olan Nazm
Planlardaki Teklifler ve Metotlar Hakknda Muvakkat Rapor, 26 April 1954. The German planner Hans
Hgg and Italian planner Luigi Piccinato were also invited. Hgg was invited in August 1956, before
the official start of the urban demolitions, and, six months after he had visited stanbul, In January
1957, he was appointed town-planning counselor by the stanbul mayorship-governorship to lead the
urban reconstruction. Piccinato was also invited by the stanbul Municipality in 1958 and he worked
until 1960.
88 pek Akpnar
DP mayorship-governorship kept on inviting foreign experts as advisors

on stanbuls urban planningto bring their know-how and expertise
to the modernization process. In the 1950s, despite the rhetoric of Turk-
ishness, history was repeating itself in practice.
Concluding remarks
In the first decades of the twentieth century, urban planners had a dif-
ficult task: to prepare projects for cities undergoing economic and social
transformation within a historical structure, and to provide social and
urban solutions to the developing problems. Finding answers to recently
emerging issues was more problematic in the context of a recently es-
tablished state and a developing country. Hence, Turkish and foreign
experts were not only charged with the program of reconstruction fol-
lowing long wars, but also with the project of making a modern and
civilized society. In regards to administrative and social modernization
as well as urban developments, Republican Turkey followed a similar
policy to the Ottomans; namely, relying upon foreign expertise for the
management and planning of cities. Architecture and urban planning
became tools to represent ideology mainly in the making of a new capital
and the development of Anatolia. Despite the rhetoric of neglect, there
were also several attempts to urbanize and solve the problems of the
former imperial capital. As in the urbanization process of Ankara, an
international urban design competition (1933) took place for stanbul;
however, its results were not implemented. The reports of the prelimi-
nary research were ready. stanbul was to be modernized following the
master plan of Henri Prost. And, in the context of Turkish politics, like
the Jansen Plan, it was the Prost Plan of 1937 that represented the radi-
cal transition from the Ottoman period to the nation-state.
In the early Republican years, the proposals for the planning of
stanbul had certain features of the city-beautiful type, reflecting refer-
ences to Western European cities. In the context of the politics of the
early Republican period, however, such features also gained local mean-
ings. The main characteristics of the projects suggested close links with
the secularizing reforms of the nation state. The foreign planners were
only some of the approximately two hundred foreign professors and
engineers who were invited to take part in the construction of the Re-
public. An investigation based on the formation and background of the
foreign planners, the official documents, their plan reports, and their
rhetoric reveals close links with the political context of the establish-
ment of nation-state and the making of a modern city in the former
imperial capital. As in Ankara, the creation of an effective transportation
89

network and a number of public spaces designed for the representation
of Republican values illustrate this goal.
Reconsidering the reports of the planners, the urban design competi-
tion and Prosts plan for stanbul were, in fact, responding to the cultural
work of representations of urban space as well as social actors, offering
us specific and visual practices in the approach to the spatiality of the
city. Describing, designing, and executing mainly open public spaces sig-
nified a radical change in urban lifea more hygienic built environment
and a new social life. The public spaces of the first master plan are not
only the visual beautification of the city and the connection of its vari-
ous zones, but they are also a powerful political and social tool in mak-
ing the new social spaces of the nation-state.
References
50 Ylda mar ve Yerleme. Ankara: mar ve skan Bakanl, 1973.
Abercrombie, Patrick. Halen Hazrlanmakta Olan Nazm Planlardaki Teklifler ve Metotlar Hakknda
Muvakkat rapor. 26 April, 1954.
Afife Batur. 1925-1950 Dneminde Trkiye Mimarl. In Istanbul: World City, exhibition catalogue.
stanbul: Trkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf, 1996, 209-34.
Agache, Alfred. Byk stanbul Tanzim ve mar Program. stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, 1934.
Ahmad, Feroz. The Making of the Modern Turkey. London: Routledge, 1993.
Akcan, Esra. Architecture of Translation: Germany Turkey and the Modern House. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2012.
Akpnar, pek. The Making of a Modern Pay- Taht in Istanbul: Menderes Executions after Prosts Plan. In
From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prosts Planning of Istanbul (19361951),
edited by Cana Bilsel and Pierre Pinon, 167-199. stanbul: Aratrmalar Enstits, 2010.
. stanbulu (Yeniden) na Etmek: 1937 Prost Plan in Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar Zamanlar nsanlar,
edited by Elvan Altan Ergut and Bilge mamolu, 107-124. Ankara: Dipnot Yaynlar, 2010.
. The Rebuilding of Istanbul After the Plan of Henri Prost, 19371960: From Secularization to Turkish
Modernization. (PhD Dissertation, University College London, 2003).
Aksoy, Asu and Kevin Robins. Istanbul Between Civilization and Discontent. New Perspectives on Turkey
10 (1994): 57-74.
Alsa, stn. The Second Period of National Architecture. In Modern Turkish Architecture, edited by
Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin, 94-104. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Angel, Aron. Projets et amenagements urbains Istanbul de 1933 nos jours. Lettre dInformation de
lObservation urbain dIstanbul 2 (1992): 2-4.
Artun, Ali and Esra Aliavuolu. Bauhaus, Modernlemenin Tasarm. (stanbul: letiim, 2009).
Aru, Kemal Ahmet. Trkiyede mar Plan Yarmalar Tarihi. Trkiye Birinci ehircilik Kongresi (Ankara:
ODT, 1982), 1-9.
Aslanolu, nci. 19281946 Dneminde Ankarada Yaplan Resmi Yaplarn Mimarisinin Deerlendirilmesi.
In Tarih Iinde Ankara, edited by Yldrm Yavuz, (Ankara: ODT, 2001), 271-286.
. Erken Cumhuriyet Dnemi Mimarl. Ankara: ODT, 2000.
Auffret, Cyril. stanbul: Fin de Sicle. Grenoble: Universit de Pierre Mendes, 1994.
Ayata, Hatice. The International Diffusion of Planning Ideas: The Case of stanbul. Journal of Planning
History 6, no. 2 (2007): 114-137.
Batur, Afife. To be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture. In Modern Turkish Architecture, edited
by Renata Holod and Ahmet Evin, 68-93. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Bazolu, Akif. stanbul marnda Karlalan Glkler ve ikayetler. Arkitekt 4 (1950): 198-202.
Behet and Bedrettin. Mimarlkta nklp. Mimar 3, no. 8 (1933): 245-247.
90 pek Akpnar
. Trk nklp Mimarisi. Mimar 3, no. 9-10 (1933): 265.

Bilsel, Cana and Pierre Pinon, eds. From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prosts
Planning of Istanbul (19361951). stanbul: stanbul Research Institute, 2010.
Bilsel, Cana. Ideology and Urbanism during the Early Republican Period: Two Master Plans for zmir and
Scenarios of Modernization. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 16 (1996): 13-60.
Bozdoan, Sibel. Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2001.
Bozdoan, Sibel and Esra Akcan. Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. London: Reaktion Books, 2012.
Cengizkan, Ali. 19241925 Lrcher Plan: Ankarann ilk Plan. Ankara: Arkada, 2004.
Cohen, Jean-Louis, From Grand Landscapes to Metropolises: Henri Prost. In From the Imperial Capital
to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prosts Planning of stanbul (19361951), edited by Cana Bilsel and
Pierre Pinon, 49-98. stanbul: stanbul Research Institute, 2010.
Cohen, J. L. and M. Eleb. Casablanca: Mythes et Figures dune Aventure Urbaine. Paris: ditions Belvisi, 1998.
Cohen, Jena-Louis, Henri Prost. In Dictionnaire de lArchitecture du XXe sicle, edited by J. P. Midant, 731-
732. Paris: F. Hazan; Institut Francais dArchitecture, 1996.
Collins, George Roseborough and Christiane Crasemann Collins. Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City
Planning. New York: Rizzoli, 1986.
Cumhuriyet Devrinde stanbul. stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, 1949.
elik, Zeynep. Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations: Algiers under French Rule. Berkeley: University of
California, 1997.
. mparatorluk, Mimarlk ve Kent. Translated by Z. Kl. stanbul: Garanti Kltr A.., 2012.
. The Remaking of Istanbul. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Deckker, Thomas, ed. The Modern City Revisited. London: Spon Press, 2000.
Dilaver, Abidin. stanbulun mar. Cumhuriyet, 20 January 1950.
Doramac, Burcu. Kulturtransfer und nationale Identitt. Deutschsprachige Architekten, Stadtplaner und
Bildhauer in der Trkei nach 1927.Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2008.
Duben, Alain and Cem Behar. stanbul Households, 18801940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
Duranay, Niyazi et al., Cumhuriyetten bu Yana stanbulun Planlamas. Mimarlk 7 (1972): 65-118.
Egli, Ernst. ehir Planlar. Arkitekt 5-6 (1936): 148-152.
. ehirlerde Mesken ve skan Meselesi. Arkitekt 5-6 (1936): 191-195.
Ehlgtz, Hermann. stanbul ehrinin Umumi Plan.stanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaas, 1934.
Ergut, Elvan Altan and Bilge mamolu, eds. Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar Zamanlar nsanlar, Ankara: Dipnot
Yaynlar, 2010.
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1994.
Franck, Oya Atalay. Architektur und Politik: Ernst Egli und die trkische Moderne 19271940. Zrich: GTA
Verlag, 2012.
. Bir Modernlik Aray: Ernst Egli ve Trkiye (19271940). In Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar Zamanlar
nsanlar, edited by Elvan Altan Ergut and Bilge mamolu, 253-262. Ankara: Dipnot Yaynlar, 2010.
Gallatti, Jean. Un Grand Urbaniste Franais: H. Prost. Bulletin Officiel du Touring et Automobil de Turquie
(February 1954): 12.
Gl, Murat. The Emergence of Modern stanbul: Transformation and Modernization of a City. New York: I. B.
Tauris, 2009.
Gner, Kaan. Modern Trk Sanatnn Douu: Konstrktivist Trkiye Cumhuriyetinde Kltr ve deoloji.
stanbul: Kaynak Yaynlar, 2014. Forthcoming.
Gzelleen stanbul, XX. Yzyl. stanbul: stanbul Maarif Matbaas, 1944.
Hautecur, Louis. Henri Prost la Villa Medicis, 19021907. In Luvre de Henri Prost: Architecture et
Urbanisme, 11-30. Paris: Acadmie dArchitecture, 1960.
Hnard, Eugne. Etudes sur les Transformations de Paris. Paris: lEquerre, 1982.
Holod, Renata and Ahmet Evin. Modern Turkish Architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1984.
stanbulun Kitab. stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, c. 1959.
stanbul ehir Plan: Imar Komisyonu Raporu. Arkitekt 50, no. 2 (1935): 33-60.
Keyder, alar. Whither the Project of Modernity? Turkey in the 1990s. In Rethinking Modernity and
National Identity in Turkey, edited by Sibel Bozdoan and Reat Kasaba, 37-51. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1997.
91
. Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Krdar, Ltfi. Vali ve Belediye Reisi Dr. Ltfi Krdarn Mektubu. In Cumhuriyet Devrinde stanbul, 8-10.
stanbul: stanbul Belediyesi, c. 1949.
Koraltrk, Murat. Cumhuriyetin lk Yllarnda stanbul. Toplumsal Tarih 59 (1998): 38-42.
Kksal, Duygu. Cumhuriyet deolojisi ve Estetik Modernizm: Baltacolu, Yeni Zamanlar ve Bauhaus.
In Bauhaus: Modernlemenin Tasarm inde, edited by Ali Artun and Esra Ali avuolu, 241-259.
stanbul: letiim Yaynlar, 2009.
Kkler, E. Kemal Ahmet Aru ile Sylei. Kent Gndem 2 (April 1997): 7-11.
Lambert, Jacques-Henri. mar Yurdu. stanbul: Milli Neriyat Yurdu, 1934.
Lapidus, Ira. Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1967.
Le Muse Social, Annales 13, no. 1 (1908).
Leontidou, Lila. The Mediterranean City in Transition: Social and Urban Development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
. Postmodernism and the City: Mediterranean Versions. Urban Studies 30 (1993): 951-954.
Leveau, Theo. stanbul. In Luvre de Henri Prost: Architecture et Urbanisme, 183-208. Paris: Acadmie
dArchitecture, 1960.
Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. New York: University of Oxford Press, 1968.
Mango, Andrew. Atatrk. London: John Murray, 1999.
Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: City of the Worlds Desire, 14531924. London: John Murray, 1995.
Meats, Tony. Constantinople, otherwise called Stanbole the Beautiful. Architectural Review 168, no. 1001
(1980): 38-45.
Mentee, Erturul. mar Planlar Hakknda Mimarlk (1949): 42-45.
. stanbulun mar. Arkitekt 24 (1955): 27-38.
Morley, David and Kevin Robins. Spaces of Identity, Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural
Boundaries. London: Routlegde, 1995.
Morta, Abidin. Harp Sonras mar leri, Arkitekt 3, no. 165-166 (1945): 191-192.
Nasr, Joe, and Mercedes Volait. Urbanism Imported or Exported: Native Aspirations and Foreign Plans.
Chichester: Wiley Academy, 2003.
Nicolai, Bernd. Moderne und Exil, Deutschsprachige Architekten in der Turkei 19251955. Berlin: Verlag fur
Bauwesen, 1998.
Olsen, Donald J. The City as a Work of Art: London, Paris, Vienna. London: Yale University Press, 1986.
Pettifer, James. The Turkish Labyrinth: Atatrk and the New Islam. London: Penguin Books, 1998.
Pinon, Pierre. Henri Prost: Paristen Romaya, Fastan stanbula. In mparatorluk Bakentinden
Cumhuriyetin Modern Kentine: Henri Prostun stanbul Planlamas (19361951), edited by Cana Bilsel
and Pierre Pinon, 15-47. stanbul Aratrmalar Enstits, stanbul, 2010.
Prost, Henri. Istanbul. Arkitekt 17 (1948): 82-85.
. TC stanbul Belediyesi, stanbul zah Eden Rapor, 15.10.1937. stanbul: stanbul Belediye Matbaas,
1938.
. stanbul Hakknda Notlar, 1937. stanbul: stanbul Belediye Matbaas, 1938.
. TC stanbul Belediyesi, Anadolu Sahili Nazm Plann zah Eden Rapor. stanbul: stanbul Belediye
Matbaas, 1940.
H. Prost Raporlarn Revizyon Komisyonu Raporu. stanbul: Belediye Matbaas, 1954.
Protsenko, Michel. Henri Prost et Istanbul. MA Thesis, LInstitut Franais dUrbanism de Paris, 1988.
Rabinow, Paul. French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. London: The University of
Chicago Press, 1995.
Royer, J. Istanbul. In LOeuvre de Henri Prost: Architecture et Urbanisme, 199-207. Paris: LAcadmie
dArchitecture, 1960.
Sutcliffe, Anthony, ed. Metropolis 18901940. London: Mansell, 1984.
Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia. London: MIT Press, 1994.
Tankut, Gnl. Jansen Plan: Uygulama Sorunlar ve Cumhuriyet Brokrasisinin Kent Planna Yaklam.
In Tarih iinde Ankara, edited by Yldrm Yavuz, 301-316. Ankara: ODT, 2001.
Tapan, Mete. stanbulun Kentsel Planlamasnn Tarihsel Geliimi ve Planlama Eylemleri. In 75 Ylda
Deien Kent ve Mimarlk, edited by Yldz Sey and lhan Tekeli, 77-80. stanbul: Tarih Vakf, 1998.
Tekeli, lhan. Modernite Alrken Kent Planlamas. Ankara: mge, 2000.
92 pek Akpnar
. Trkiyede 19. Yzyl Ortalarndan 1950ye Kadar Kentsel Aratrmalarn Geliimi. In Trkiyede
Sosyal Bilim Aratrmalarnn Geliimi, edited by Sevil Atauz, 247-250. Ankara: Trk Sosyal Bilimler
Dernei, 1986.
. The Development of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area: Urban Administration and Planning. stanbul: Kent
Basmevi, 1994.
. 19.y. stanbul Metropol Alannn Dnm. In Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl Kentleri (Villes
Ottomanes a la Fin de Iempire, 1992), edited by Paul Dumont and Franois Georgeon, 31-60. stanbul:
Trk Tarih Vakf, 1996.
. Trkiyede Cumhuriyet Dneminde Kentsel Gelime ve Kent Planlamas. In 75 Ylda Deien Kent
ve Mimarlk. stanbul: Bankas ve Tarih Vakf, 1998.
Tekeli, lhan and Selim lkin. 1923 Ylnda stanbulun ktisadi Durumu ve stanbul Ticaret ve Sanayi Odas
ktisat Komisyonu Raporu. In Bildiriler: Tarih Boyunca stanbul Semineri, 271-275. stanbul, 1989.
Tekin, lke. Trkiyede kinci Dnya Sava Sonras Betonarmenin nas. PhD Dissertation, T, 2013.
Tmer, Grhan et al., eds. Sempozyum: Ideoloji, Erk ve Mimarlk. zmir: Dokuz Eyll niversitesi, 1996.
Uluda, Zeynep. Mimarlk Tarih Yazmna Eletirel Bak: Cumhuriyetin Modern Kent Peyzajn Okumak.
In Cumhuriyetin Mekanlar Zamanlar nsanlar, edited by Elvan Altan Ergut and Bilge mamolu, 153-
168. Ankara: Dipnot Yaynlar, 2010.
. Cumhuriyet Dneminde Rekreasyon ve Genlik Park rnei. In 75 Ylda Deien Kent ve Mimarlk,
edited by Yldz Sey. stanbul: Tarih Vakf, 1998.
Uluolu, Belks. T Mimarlk Fakltesinin Kurulu Yllar: Holzmeister, Bonatz Dierleri ve Mimarlk
Eitiminin rgtlenmesinde Orta Avrupal zler. In Bauhaus, Modernlemenin tasarm, edited by Ali
Artun ve Esra Aliavuolu, 347-372. stanbul: letiim, 2009.
Wagner, Martin. stanbul ehrinin Dzeltilmesi Meselesi. Arkitekt 8 (1936): 217-218.
. stanbulun Seyrsefer Meselesi. Arkitekt 9 (1936): 252-255.
. stanbul Havalisinin Plan. Arkitekt 10-11 (1936): 301-306.
. stanbul Havalisinin Plan 2. Arkitekt 12 (1936): 333-337.
. stanbul Havalisinin Plan: Der Landesplan von Istanbul. Report of 11 December, 1936. stanbul, 1937.
Wolf, P. M. Eugne Hnard and the Beginning of Urbanism in Paris, 19001914. The Hague: Ando, 1968.
Wright, Gwendolyn. The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1991.
Yada, Sait. Tatbiki Gzel Sanatlar Okullarnn Dou Sebepleri ve Fonksiyonlar. In Bauhaus,
Modernlemenin Tasarm, edited by Ali Artun ve Esra Aliavuolu, 525-567. stanbul: letiim, 2009.
Yeilkaya, Nee. Halkevleri: deoloji ve Mimarlk. stanbul: letiim, 1999.
Yerasimos, Stefanos. Tanzimatn Kent Reformlar zerine. In Modernleme Srecinde Osmanl Kentleri,
edited by Paul Dumont and Franois Georgeon, 1-18. stanbul: Tarih Vakf, 1996.
. Azgelimilik Srecinde Trkiye. stanbul: Belge, 1974.
. Istanbul and Its Westernization Process. In Istanbul: World City, 48-53. stanbul: Turkiye Ekonomik
ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf, 1996. Exhibition catalog.
Yeilkaya, Nee Grallar. Halkevleri, deoloji ve Mimarlk. stanbul: letiim, 1999.
Yrekli, Zeynep. Modernletirici Devrimlerde Geici Mimarlk ve Trkiye rnei. MA Thesis, T, 1995.
View publication stats

NPT 50 IpekAkpinar

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NPT 50 IpekAkpinar

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

See

The Rebuilding of stanbul Revisited: Foreign

Article in New Perspectives on Turkey March 2014

stanbul View project

Turkification of Istanbul View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The rebuilding of stanbul

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Keywords: Early Republican era, rebuilding of stanbul, foreign experts, ur-

New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 50 (2014): 59-92.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Planning and architecture went through a paradigm shift at the turn

formations.11 Nevertheless, there has been little research produced on

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

The remaking of the imperial center

tion of fires.21 In fact, the reconstruction of the old districts of stanbul

had been undertaken several times since the mid-nineteenth century by

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Source: Courtesy of Atatrk Library, stanbul Municipality Archive.

which had been weakened by nationalistic movements within the em-

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

torical peninsula, Beyolu-Pera, Beikta, and skdar (19261928).

Just as for other reforms of the nation-state in technological and social

Continuity in invitation of European experts: The international urban

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

41 IFA/AA archive, Fonds Prost, HP, ARC, 30/43.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Everything directly concerning the family life of workers (housing,

The institute became an intellectual platform for a better future envi-

44 Le Muse social, Annales 13, no. 1 (1908): 56.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

ban future.57 In the late 1930s, Wagners population analysis of stanbul,

projecting a city of a maximum of 3.5 million inhabitants in the future,

The rebuilding of stanbul: the Prost Plan of 1937

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

stanbul has to live a modern life, acknowledging the hygienic prob-

62 Gzelleen stanbul, n.p.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

68 Prost, Istanbul, 110.

Figure 2: The First Master Plan of Istanbul, Henri Prost, 1937.

Source: Courtesy of IFA/AA archive, HP, PHO, 30-4, 3.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Source: Courtesy of IFA/AA archive, Fonds Prost.

72 Prost, La Transformation dIstanbul, notes 17, 21, 24.

in all subjects.75 And he connected the reforms with urbanization in

75 Prost to Hautecur, 7 October 1943. IFA/AA archive.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

Source: IFA/AA Archive, Fonds Prost.

ilarities with the modernizing ideology of the new Republic. In short,

Women and men have a national day of happiness today [] The

Main roads were constructed and improved; urban demolitions and

81 For a broader discussion see, pek Akpnar, The Rebuilding of Istanbul.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

DP mayorship-governorship kept on inviting foreign experts as advisors

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

. Trk nklp Mimarisi. Mimar 3, no. 9-10 (1933): 265.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

View publication stats

Anda mungkin juga menyukai