Evaluation of sustainable urban preservation concept via Ankara Hamamönü example

The city identity, taking form with pysical, cultural, socio-economical, historical and stylistic factors, carrying peculiar characteristics in each city, formed by the citizens and their lifestyles, constantly developing and reflecting the sustainable urban concept, is a completion of concepts. Urban identity elements, either they are natural or human artifact, are the witnesses of the past and form our cultural heritage. Conserving our cultural heritage without bearing heavy losses, transferring to the future generations are important in terms of social and cultural sustainability concepts and are some of main duties. However, the change in urbanization, population increase, life style due to the social structure and depending on these reasons such as functional, physical and economical obsolescence cause the buildings creating our cultural heritage, witnessing our past and the physical environment consisting of these buildings to alter or to undergo the perishing process. In this context, the aim of the study is the evaluation of preservation and renewal practices done in Ankara Hamamönü province in terms of sustainable urban preservation principles, according to the relevant legislation in force in the context of urban transformation and urban renewal practices donein recent years.


INTRODUCTION
According to dictionary description, preservation is "to protect something from danger and to make certain of external effects", while in glossary of urban sciences terms, preservation is described as "To assure the cultural assets (monuments, natural site areas etc.)with historical and architectural value placed at some urban regions among destructive, offensive and harmful activities in order to transfer them to future generations" (Keleş, 1998).
We can qualify Ankara Hamamönü example, handled in the content of study, as preservation-oriented urban transformation rather than urban preservation. Thomas (2003) defines urban transformation as a "comprehensive vision and action that aims to provide permanent solutions for the economical, physical, social and environmental urban problems witnessed in a transformed region." Robert and Skyes (2000) describe this term as a "comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in *Corresponding author. E-mail: racibayer@hotmail.com.
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change." Urban transformation and urban preservation are being perceived as contrary terms. However, urban preservation is only a type of intervention of urban transformation. Urban preservation is applied on mostly urban site areas in Turkey. According to International Union For Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area definition is as follows: "a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, though legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values." As the urban pattern in Ankara Hamamönü consists historical, aesthetical, memorial and record value, it was announced as "Urban Protected Area" with the decision of High Council of Immovable Monuments and Antiquities on 12. 04.1980 according to the resolution numbered A-2167 (Arslan, 2009).
Hamamönü which is the first settlement of Ankara, has witnessed a lot of historical events. The houses handled in the context of the research, are examples of the 19th century Late Ottoman civil architecture style. Also, the region carries importance in terms of having witnessed the Early Turkish Republic period  and has been shaped again towards contemporary life conditions in accordance with differentiated needs.
Sustainable urban preservation which states today"s preservation approach can be identified as protecting cultural heritage in cities with historical centers and determining strategical decisions intended to keep alive the cultural asset with adapting them to today"s life style and conditions, the process of practical planning consists of spatial planning approaches (Özcan, 2009:1).

Aim
It is important to preserve historical city places, forming our cultural heritage, to transfer historical accumulation to next generations in terms of socio-cultural sustainability. The main objective of this study, in order to prove that it is possible to transform cities within the limits of preservation, is to revitalize urban economy, to create new attraction centers and to show that urban preservation and transformation can exist together which are believed to be contrary terms through Ankara Hamamönü example. Another aim is to criticize the positive and negative sides of the Project within the framework of legislations towards the principles of sustainable urban preservation.

Content
Primarily, this study focuses on the terms of urban transformation, urban preservation, historical processes Asut and Bayer 89 and legal development of the terms in Europe and especially in Türkiye. In the article urban transformation projects applied on the selected study area are evaluated for plus or minus yields for local citizens.
In the discussion and result part, it is searched for an answer how to operate urban transformation in historical city centers where dense commercial facilities are carried on preservation and how to avoid turning preservation Project into a rantable process for municipalities.

METHODOLOGY
Theses and articles written previously about Hamamönü project were compiled and literature scanning was done on the topic. Maps of the region, project documents and other information are provided from concerned municipality. In the study area descriptive research was made. The restorated houses were examined through projects and maps, observational data was obtained by photoprahing them. In order to access to the photographs of the buildings before restoration, the municipality"s web site was used. The status of the buildings after restoration were compared with the previous ones before the project and it was investigated for what was preserved and must have been preserved.

Development of preservation in Europe
The birth and development of preservation consciousness is a process specific to Western Europe, started in the 19th century and based on architectural movements, preservation approaches have been developed. First of these approaches is the "purist restoration (recomposition stylistique)" led by Viollet le Duc (1814-1879), followed by "Romantic view" by Ruskin (1819-1900) who defends not to intervene in historical buildings, and finally by Beltrami (1854Beltrami ( -1933 who believes that the restoration must be based on scientific grounds. With "Modern restoration theory" occurred at the end of the 19th century, emphasizing the preservation of the whole periodical supplements developed by Giovannoni, preserving the monuments with the surroundings came forward firstly and subsequently preservation of historical environment concept was born. At the Atina Conference held in 1931, the idea that necessary attention must be paid to historical monuments took place, and preservation of historical environment concept was moved to an international platform. In 1932, Giovannoni"s principles were accepted as "Carta del Restauro" and gained legal identity (Ahunbay, 1996).
As demolishings were made at the historical city centers in some countries at the end of the 2nd World War, international organizations were established such as ICOM, Council of Europe, ICCROM, ICOMOS, and Europe Nostra, The European Association of Historic Towns and Regions and meetigs were arranged on preservation hassles in historical centers (Zeren, 1981). In the same years (1950)(1951)(1952)(1953)(1954)(1955)(1956)(1957)(1958)(1959)(1960) "Urban Renewal" concept occurred and during this time its context has enlarged involving historical city centers (Özden, 2001).
Tough Malraux Law, which had been published two years before Venice Charter (1964), was a national legislation. It reached beyond preserving a monument with the term of "preserved areas" (Kuban, 2000). Urban regions began to be preserved for the first time (Canıtez, 2010).
At the 1st International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments which was held in 1957 at Paris, from the concept of "A Monument In City" was skipped to "The city as a Monument" (Binan, 2008). At the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments arranged in Venice in 1964, "historical monument" was determined as a term, defined again by means that it contained urban regions, and the opinion that preservation of monuments should involve the maintenance of the surrounding, was accepted as a principal concept (Ahunbay, 1996).
In Viyana Recommendation (1965) and Bath Recommendation (1966) published by Council of Europe, it is emphasized that preservation must be seen as a common responsibility in order to protect the areas with historical and/or artificial value effectively. At European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (1975), new approaches were developed; for example "monument" concept was passed to "cultural heritage" term, the context of historical environment was expanded, "integrated preservation" sense was put forward (Toksöz, 2001). At Declaration of Amsterdam (1975), integrated preservation involving both local authorities and citizens and taking into consideration social factors, was approved. At Nairobi Recommendation (1976), the importance of the setting-buildings, spatial elements, and surroundings make up historic areas, were recognized. At the meeting of Historic Towns and Regions which was held in 1978, it was stated that rehabilitations done in historic places should become widespread (Zeren, 1981). Between 1980-1981, "Urban Renewal" campaign was commenced by Council of Europe (Toksöz, 2001). At the Washington Charter (Charter on the Preservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas-1987), new functions given to historical buildings should be compatible with the historical urban fabric, was embraced (Ahunbay, 1996).
In Europe, it is seen that there is a multibody organizational structure about the preservation authority. In developed countries, authority transfer to municipalities are done frequently, whereas in developing countries concentration of power in a central authority tendency is more preferable (Yılmaz, 2006). Especially after the Second World War, in industrialized countries, an integrative and participating planning approach was adopted and efforts have been made to preserve historical urban areas.
With "Participator Area Management Model" organizational structure will be defined, participants who will take role in preservation studies will be determined, and solutions particular to the area will be produced (Kejanlı et al., 2007).
Nowadays, the biggest difficulty UNESCO encounters with is to make public society and governments believe that cultural heritage is a component of development. European Council and European Union"s target is to combine cultural heritage with sustainable development concept (Keskinkılınç, 2008).

Ottoman period
In the Ottoman Empire, it was late for legal arrangements at preservation of monuments in comparison to Europe, because the topic was solved in foundation system (Çal, 1990). The first legal regulations about urbanism were "Ebniye Nizamnameleri" (1848, 1864) and "Asar-ı Atika Nizamnameleri" (1869,1874,1884,1906) were the first legislations to prevent smuggling of movable cultural asset to foreign countries (Akçura, 1972). At "Muhafaza-i Abidat Nizamnamesi" dated 1912, demolishing was legalized rather than preservation. With the Law dated 1915, as a result of leaving the lands of monuments that were decided to be demolished, many monuments disappeared (Çal, 1990).

The Republican period
In this transition period from empirement to rebuplic, transferring cultural heritage from repealed associations to Republic"s new establishments had become a dilemma. The preservation authority in the country named "The Committee of Muhafaza-i Asarı Atika"(1917), whose duty region was restricted with Istanbul, was converted to "The Committe of Preservation of Historical Monuments" in 1924, and duty region was extended to whole country (Madran, 1996). In order to restore historical monuments demolished by municipalities" town planning operations "The Commission of Preservation of Monuments" was established in 1930 and many monuments had been recorded officially (Akçura, 1972).
The first real approach in urban preservation, was the development plan of the capital town, Ankara, dated 1932. In the report of the development plan, the preservation of the Ankara Castle was asserted. In 1937, the Castle and the surroundings were announced as "Protocole Area" and were taken under protection (Dinçer and Akın, 1994). In 1950s, migration from rural areas to city began and abandoned historical city centers was started to be slum areas. "High Council of Immovable Monuments and Antiquities" was established in 1951, and the context of monument term was extended to containing the rural/urban sites. With "The 1710 Law" which was put into force in 1973, after "site" term was defined, preservation extended through parcel scale to area scale (Zeren, 1981).
With the Law numbered 2863, amended by Law no. 5226, "The Preservation of Cultural and Natural Property" (1983), area management and making "Development Plan for Preservation" gained currency (Canıtez, 2010).
In Turkey, in the context of urban transformation studies which accelerated after 1999 earthquake had occured in İzmit (Kocaeli), for the preservation of urban site areas and the renewal of historical centers, "The 5366 Law Concerning the Preservation of the Worn Historical and Cultural Assets Through Restoration and Utilizing Through Perpatuation" was omitted in 2005. By the Law, huge power and authorization was given to local governments in the regions determined as "Renewal Areas" (Küçük, 2010).
With the Municipality Law of 5393 (Clause 14/b, 73), authorization for the application of urban transformation and development projects were recognized to municipilaties (Genç, 2008). With the Metropolitan Municipality Law of 5216, dated 2004, Clause7/e, the same venue was given to metropolitan municipalities. The final legislation about urban transformation is the Law numbered 6306 "Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risks" came into force 2012, aims to dispose the hazards of disasters, to obtain the transformation of the areas under risk because of the ground or the structure on it and to ensure the risky buildings which have completed their physical life.

ANKARA HAMAMÖNÜ PROVİNCE
In this stage of study, the applications which were carried out on the basis of "Municipality Law of 5393" and "The 5366 Law Concerning the Preservation of the Worn Historical and Cultural Assets Through Restoration and Utilizing Through Perpatuation", will be examined through contemporary preservation policies and sustainable urban preservation principles.

Short history and location
Hamamönü, connected to Altındağ district of Ankara, is located on the south hillside of Ankara Castle, which was settled down on a supreme hill in ancient times. After the region had been abandoned by the high income group as a result of differences in life style coming with establishment of the Republic, it was turned into distress area with the migration of low-income group from rural area (Urak, 2002). The area, situated in north-east of Hacettepe Hospital, is divided into three zones by Talapaşa Avenue and Ulucanlar Street which are the main arterial roads. With traditional handicrafts, the region carries historical trade center qualification.
In the 1990s, development plans for preservation and rehabilitation of historical city center in Ulus and Ankara Castle, were made up (Urak, 2002).
The development plan preservation and rehabilitation of Ankara"s historical city pattern made up in 2004, was the beginning of the studies for restoration applications in Hamamönü (Arslan, 2012). Based on the Law numbered 5366, the region was announced as "Renewal Area", Ankara historical city center-Renewal Area implementary development plan was improved. But, in 2009, the "renewal area" announcement was cancelled by Administrative Court, so this development plan was not put into force (Arslan, 2009).

Legal bases on preservation
In the years of 1972, 1980 and 1986, Hamamönü and its surroundings were registered officially by High Council of Immovable Monuments and Antiquities. The legal baselines of the restoration, rehabilitation and renewal studies in Hamamönü and neighbourhood were consisted of the Law numbered 2863, amended by Law no. 5226, "The Preservation of Cultural and Natural Property"(1983), which requires making "Development Plan for Preservation", the Metropolitan Municipality Law of 5216 (2004), the Municipality Law of 5393 and "The 5366 Law Concerning the Preservation of the Worn Historical and Cultural Assets Through Restoration and Utilizing Through Perpatuation". However, according to "Renewal Area" criteria put forward by the Law numbered 5366, the "Renewal Area" announcement was cancelled and therefore no applications were done. Because of the useless efforts about making a development plan for preservation, preservation works havecontinued towards "transition term settlement rules" since 2010 uptill now (Arslan, 2012).

Current status
The buildings in Hamamönü which carry the properties of "Central Anatolia Region" residential architecture, generally 2-3 storied with sofa or courtyard, are examples of XIX. century civil Ottoman architecture (Kale, 2011). Balconies were supplied with wooden embarkings (seldom "eli böğründe"). For half-timbered houses, rubble/cut stone was used in the base storey and adobe brick between wooden frame was used in upper storey. Parallel to the wide commercial function in the region, inner spaces of houses were changed, face-lifting was made at facades, also seen some extensions and illegal additional stories due to the needs and a lot of original buildings were demolished before restoration (Kurtar, 2012).

Types of intervention
Hamamönü Urban Preservation Project, which was deemed worthy of "Golden Apple World Tourism Oscar Award" and "The Project and Application Award of Union of Historical Towns" in 2012, consists of urban transformation interventions applied such as rehabilitation, revitalization and reconstructions at single houses ( Figure  1). Rehabilitation means getting old city pattern with insufficient infrastructure to sufficient status with partial renewals (Ataöv and Osmay, 2007). Revitalization is defined as, "To provide regaining vitalization of historical city centers, which lost their popularity, via taking social precautions (Şahin, 2003). During rehabilitation, Face-Lifting was applied to houses which did not have statical problems, meant handling only facades of them. If necessary, infill was made in order to accord with present pattern. In the content of reconstructions, demolishing and rebuilding actions were performed, incomptaible with preservation principles.

Interventions done
Nine street rehabilitation projects were prepared in the region between Ankara Castle and Hacettepe University Hospital (Figure 2 : altındag.bel.tr,2014) studies, the damaged roofs were fixed with wooden construction elements in the officially registered buildings, those lost their bearing capacity were changed with the new ones, those are suitable with original details having same dimensions and cross-sections with the master pieces (Municipality of Altındağ, 2014). The pathways were rescued from asphalte and paved with floor brick, substructure was redesigned, waste water pipes, electricity and telephone lines were taken underground (Arslan, 2009: 33). İnci and Dutlu Streets were determined priorly as "1st Revitalization Area" because of the closeness to the Hacettepe University, in 2006 (Arslan, 2012: 81). 20 of the 36 buildings which were held through street rehabilitation projects were registered officially (Figure 4). The front facades of buildings were restorated primitively (Municipality of Altındağ, 2014) (Pictures 1, 2, 3). Nowadays, these buildings generally function commercially like restaurant, cafe, pharmacy or market etc (Picture 4, 5, 6).

Mehmet Akif Ersoy-Hamamönü-Fırın and İnanlı Streets
Second stage of the project consists of the rehabilitation of four streets close to the Hacettepe University. At the renewed wooden window elements original details were lost, uniform frames were used (Pictures 7 and 8).
In the context of the project, which was prepared by a technical team of the municipality, totally 17 buildings were rehabilitated, 3 of them were officially registered (Arslan, 2012) (Pictures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14).

Atpazarı and Can Streets
Atpazarı and Can Streets, which are the main roads to the Ankara Castle, function as the only antique bazaar in  the city. Within the Project, 55 buildings were rehabilitated 9 of those were officially registered (Picture 15, 16). Because the main functionality of the area is commerce space, the shop windows and pull-down shutters were designed monotypically ( Figure 5).
According to the information taken from municipality officers, at the beginning of the Project the shutters were planned upon details viewed from old photos of the buildings, but changed then because the users didn"t find the original designs compatible with the commercial usage Municipality of Altındağ, 2014).

Filiz, Kurnaz and Koyunpazarı Streets
At some of the commercial units wooden frame was manufactured and at some of them iron frame was preferred with different dimensions (Figure 6, Picture 17) (Altındağ Municipality, 2014). There is a nonimplemented building at the centre of the street with adobe filled timber frame, need to be paid attention (Picture 18). 20 buildings are located on Kurnaz Street, which 9 of them registered officially, connected with Ulucanlar Street an elevation difference of approximately 10-12 m (Picture 19). At the buildings which are placed at Filiz Street, no implementations had been made (Arslan, 2012). At the commercial buildings onKoyunpazarı Street, souvenir and antique shops, hardware stores and leather shops take part. 4 of the total 32 buildings are officially registered at the Koyunpazarı Street. In the context of this Project, "Local Council of Preservation" demanded seperate unique solutions for each commercial unit because of the different needs of them in contrast with monotype facade arrangements done on Atpazarı Street Project before.

Sarıkadı Street rehabilitation project
Sarıkadı Street, which has the most important economic vitality of Hamamönü, hosts student dormitories and constitutes entrance to the historical pattern (Pictures 20 and 21). In the context of the project, totally 38 buildings were handled, of which 11 of them were offically registered. The general problems detected at buildings were; moving the interior walls at commercial units, being destroyed of the facades because of the chimney need, deformation of the roof, distortion of the original windows, flaking off paints and stucco, deflection in wooden base system (Picture 22) (Altındağ Municipality, 2014). Using monotype verge boards and bonding timbers used at floor elevations, spoil the original design of the facade (Picture 23).

Sarıca, Hamamarkası and Gebze Streets
23 buildings were included in the scope of the project, of which 6 of them were officially registered at Sarıca Street. Totally 32 buildings are located on Hamamarkası and

Pirinç and Karakaş Streets
Ulus Primary School, Çengel Inn, Pilavoğlu Inn are located next to the Koyunpazarı Ramp and Pirinç Inn is located near the project border (Picture 29, 30). In the area, where is the center of antique shops, cafes, restaurants, handicraft units, there are 22 buildings in the context of the Project, 3 of them are officially registered (Arslan, 2012).

Reconstruction projects at single buildings
Reconstruction projects were carried out at single buildings those were in a bad condition and impossible to be repaired. The implementations, started by Altındağ Municipality at 2006, were applied only to facades of buildings in the context of rehabilitation project at the beginning. After the year 2009, it was seen that, projects were applied through expropriation, demolishing, and reconstruction, instead building the structure afresh (Altındağ Municipality, 2014;Arslan, 2012).
For example, to the house"s facade located onM. Akif Ersoy Street, unoriginal balconies were added, the base floor was arranged to be a commercial shop and a door was opened to the facade, windows were designed monotype (Pictures 31 and 32). In some implementations, the unoriginal window openings were filled, and in some of them they have been opened which were closed previously so they have been reached to their original status (Pictures 33 and 34).

Public projects
Hamamönü Square Project: The historical square known as fair grounds, had been invaded by municipality middle of the square as a street furniture which didn"t exist in the original form (Picture 37) (Kale, 2011;Arslan, 2012).

Handicrafts Centre and Cultural Centre Projects:
Because the buildings in the area have not reached today, the buildings which function as exhibition, meeting hall, conference hall and open-air cinema were reconstructed with infill technique and have complied with existing pattern but an exact information about the original status of the buildings is not available (Pictures 40 and 41) (Kurtar, 2012).
Hamamönü urban transformation and renewal project is examined through strengths and weaknesses, doing swot analysis, as an example for the coexistence of old and new in developing urban pattern, the implementations and restorations done in order to obtain urban preservation.
In the consist of street rehabilitation projects done in Hamamönü, front facades of officially registered or nonregistered unmovable cultural assets were rehabilitated with face-lifting, the interior spaces were redesigned according to contemporary uses and needs, square and landscape designs were made. Thereby, the historical pattern of region was given prominence and saved from being getto. The region which was not preferred before implementation except essentiality because of the security problems especially at nights and nonexistence of qualified social places although there is a student dormitory, has turned to an attraction center for not only students also for foreign visitors at the weekends. However, because of rising rental payments existing users had to move from the region, gentrification duration had started and displeasure among users had begun.
In the context of studies, in the reconstruction projects which were made after the year 2009 the houses were reconstructed with the effort of making traditional Ankara houses in a typical way in order to comply with existing neighborhood pattern without exploring the original status of them. According to Ahunbay (2011), a copy can revive only the figure of the historical building, it is impossible to take place of original one, it never carries a historical value. Like adopted in Europe, integrative planning approach should be embraced rather than fragmentary planning approach and independent plans made for only renewing urban protected areas. According to comprehensive authorities given to municipalities in Europe, we observe that in Turkey, a more centralized management and organzational structure is valid. But in Hamamönü example, taking active role of the municipality in the restoration Project is evaluated positively constituing a good example for other projects. However, it is seen that there is an effort to create new rantable commercial places in Hamamönü and renewing buildings done with demolishment and imitating. Imitating the buildings with historical value does not bring back its memorial and historical value and the new one is nothing but a bad "kitsch".
At the street rehabilitation projects, the forms and details of wooden frames were destroyed, windows were designed typically. Especially it can be seen that in the buildings placed on Hamamönü and M. Akif Ersoy Street that the nonexisting shops in original were opened on ground floors towards commercial rant (PictureS 31, 32, 33 and 34). Both inner and outer restorations were made only to the buildings belonging to University or public property. However, in the private property buildings, inner restoration was left to owners (Kurtar, 2012). It is a wrong application restoring only the facades of buildings in general study area. Inner space intervention was applied only when static problems existed in structural system in order to reinforce the building.
It is so wrong that handling and repairing only the front facades of historical buildings (Bilgiç, 2009). It is also widely criticized to use floor brick as street ground covering instead of granite cube stone. It is certain that adding a clock tower into the middle of the square as a street furniture which didn"t exist in the original form is contradictory to the historical urban pattern.
Even though the project is open to comments and wrong implementations have done, it is prominent for being an attraction center for local and foreign tourists, being saved from becoming getto, being evidence for readapting historical buildings into modern life and regaining them into economical life.