Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 24 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 26-08-2021

The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent

Öz:
Purpose VoyvodaStreet in Galata district of Istanbul originated centuries ago at the inner walls of the medieval city and was one of the most significant of its era, which has preserved its unique character and urban identity. In the nineteenth century, it became an important financial axis for the city. This study aims to understand the factors which determined the axial character of Voyvoda Street and its urban identity. The street, which is under the influence of new dynamics is examined in relation to spatial and functional transformation.Design/Methodology/ApproachThe analysis was developed by two essential components: the street and the buildings that define the character of the street by its architectural components, and their functional transformation since thenineteenth century. The axial character of the street has been evaluated due to selected criteria. The data is based on literature review, the survey of historical maps, visual materials such as photographs and gravure prints, and on-site observations.FindingsThe street has been shapedand transformed by social, political, and economic developments, external and internal migrations, the influence of modernist architectural movements, urban reforms, Western innovations in transportation, and technical developments. Voyvoda Street’s strong character as an axis is determined by its historical buildings, which are attached to each other continuously that form a wall defining the boundaries of the street. It is one of the essential pedestrian connections and functions as a path. Since most of the buildings lost their original functions, following the re-use for various needs, the service and cultural industries have become dominant. Although the historical characters of some buildings have been changed by new additions, the original silhouette of the nineteenth century is still dominant.Research Limitations/ImplicationsVisual materials and resources of some buildings were available in detail, while for some of them, the materials were limited.Originality/ValueThe previous studies concentrated on urban, and architectural aspects of Galata district as a whole, whereas this study focused on the urban identity of Voyvoda Street. The street and the historical buildings that define the axial character and the image of the street by its architectural components, and their functional transformation have been analyzed.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Akin, G. (2011).20. Yüzyıl Başında İstanbul: Toplumsal ve Mekansal Farklılaşma, Osmanlı Başkentinden Küreselleşen İstanbul’a: Mimarlık ve Kent 1910-2010. İstanbul, Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi.
  • Akin, N. (1998).19.Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera.Literatür Yayıncılık.
  • Akpınar, İ. (2011).Osmanlı Başkentinden Küreselleşen İstanbul’a: Mimarlık ve Kent 1910-2010.Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi.
  • Alpay, S.(2007).Voyvoda (Bankalar) Caddesi’nin Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Hezaren Han, Master of ScienceThesis, Yildiz Technical University, Institute of Science.
  • Altan, B. (2007). ‘Arşiv Belgeleri Işığında Hezaren Han’ın Yapısal Çözümlemesi, Master of ScienceThesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science.
  • Ashworth, G. J. & Tunbridge, J. E. (1990).TheTourist-Historic City.Belhaven.
  • Ashworth, G. J. &Larkham, P. J. (1994).Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe. London, Routledge.
  • Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R. (2012).The Historic Urban Landscape.HobokenWiley.
  • Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R. (2015).Introduction Urban Conservation and the End of Planning, In F, Bandarin, and Oers, V (Eds.). Reconnecting the City. Wiley, UK.
  • Batur, A. (1996).DünyaKenti İstanbul.Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Batur, A. (2001).Galata andPera, A ShortHistory: Urban Development Architecture and Today.ARI: The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University, 55(1), 1-10.
  • Bilgin, I. (2010).İstanbul 1910-2010, Kent, Yapılı Çevre ve Mimarlık Sergisi Kataloğu. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Bullen, P. A., &Love, P.E. D. (2010). The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Viewsfromthefield. Cities,27, 215–224.
  • Can, C. (1999). Tanzimat and Architecture.In N.Akın (Eds.) 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: A Supra-NationalHeritage. İstanbul, Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi Publications.
  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S. (2003). The Dimensions of Urban Design. In M. Carmona et al. (Eds.) Public Places –Urban Spaces.Oxford, Architectural Press.
  • Celik, Z. (1998).19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı BaşkentiDeğişenIstanbul. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
  • Dokmeci,V.,Altunbas,U., &Yazgi,B. (2007).Revitalisation of the main street of a distinguishedoldneighbourhood in Istanbul.European Planning Studies, 15(1),153–166.
  • Eldem, E. (1999). Bankalar Caddesi: Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Voyvoda Caddesi.Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi. Tarih Vakfı.
  • Eldem, E. (2000).İstanbul: İmparatorluk Payitahtından Periferleşmiş bir Başkente. In E. Eldem; D. Goffman; B. Masters; translation S. Yalçın. Doğu ve Batı kenti arasında Osmanlı Kenti: Halep, İzmir, İstanbul. İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.
  • Eroğlu, Ö. (1992). Sur İçi Galata’sıÜzerine Bir Deneme,Istanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
  • Eyice, S. (1996).Galata Kulesi, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, İslam Ansiklopedisi, (13),313-316.
  • García-Hernández M, De la Calle-Vaquero M, Yubero C. (2017).Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under Pressure.Sustainability, 9(8), 13-46.
  • Gençer, C.İ.,Çokuğraş, I, (2016).Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Kentsel Mekânın Düzenlenmesi: İstanbul Örneği (1820–1900).Megaron,11(1), 1-14.
  • Gibberd, F. (1955). Town Design.Architectural Press.
  • Gospodini, A. (2004).Urban Morphology and Place Identity in European Cities: Built Heritage and Innovative Design. Journal of Urban Design,9(2), 225-248.
  • Gutman, R. (1986).The Street Generation. In S. Anderson(Eds.). On Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Güvenç, M., et al., (2012).Azman Sanayi Kentinden Kentsel Bölgeye. In İstanbul 1910-2010, Kent, Yapılı Çevre ve Mimarlık Sergisi Kataloğu.İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  • Hansen, H. (2012, February 12). The Istanbul Art-BoomBubble. The New York Times Magazine,Retrieved from URLwww.nytimes.com.
  • Hartshorn, T.A. (1992). InterpretingtheCity.Canada, JonWileyandSons.
  • Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City.New Left Review, 53, 23-40.
  • Hegemann, W. &Peets, E. (1922).TheAmericanVitrivius, An Architect’sHandbook of Civic Art. Benjamin Blom.
  • Hosagrahar, J. (2015).Knowledge and Planning Tools. In F. Bandarin and O. Van (Eds.). Reconnecting the City. Wiley, UK.
  • Kostof, S. (1992).The City Assembled.BullfinchPress.
  • Kuban, D. (1998).Kent ve Mimarlık Üzerine İstanbul Yazıları.Yem Yayınları.
  • Kuban, D. (2016). Osmanlı Mimarisi. Yem Yayınları.
  • Larkham,P. &Jones,A. (1993).The character of conservation areas in Great Britain. Town Planning Review, 64(4), 395–413.
  • Lowenthal, D., &Binney, D. (1981). Caringforthepast: Changingattitudes. InD. Lowenthal&D. Binney(Eds.). Ourpastbefore us: Why do wesave it?. London, Temple Smith.
  • Lynch, K (1960). The Image of the City.MIT Press.
  • Mehta, V. (2013). The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space.Routledge.ISBN: 0415527104, 9780415527101.
  • Moudon, A.V. (1991). Public Streets for Public Use. Columbia University Press.ISBN: 0231075995, 9780231075992.
  • Moughtin, C. (2003). Urban Design: Street andSquare.ArchitecturalPress.
  • Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971).Existence, Space and Architecture.Cox and Wyman.Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980).Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Academy Editions.
  • Ortayli, I. (2016).Eski Beyoğlu’ndan Çizgiler. İnkılap Kitabevi.
  • Özbay, C., Candan, B. A., (2014). Sunuş, In C. Özbay and B. A. Candan Yeni İstanbul Çalışmaları. İstanbul, Metis Yayıncılık.
  • Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2013).Adaptivereuse as an emergingdiscipline: An historicsurvey.In G. Carns (Eds.) Reinventing architecture and interiors: a socio-political view on building adaptation, London,LibriPublishers.
  • Powell,K.(1999). Architecture reborn. Convertingoldbuildingsfornewuses.Rizzoli International Publications.
  • Rapoport,A. (1987) Pedestrian Street Use: Culture and Perception.InA. V. Moudon (Eds.) Public Streets for Public Uses. Portland, VNR.
  • Relph, E. (1976).PlaceandPlacelessness. Pion.
  • Schumacher, T. (1986) Buildings and streets. In S. Anderson(Eds.) On Streets(pp.132–149).MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Scott, F. (2008).On alteringarchitecture.Routledge.
  • Smithson, A. and Smithson, P. (1967). Urban Structuring.Studio Vista.
  • Steele,F.(1981). The Sense of Place. Boston,CBI.
  • Tunbridge, J. E. & Ashworth, G. J. (1996).Dissonant Heritage: The Management of thePast as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester, Wiley.
  • Zukin, S. (2012).The social production of urban cultural heritage: Identity and ecosystem on an Amsterdam shopping Street, City. Culture and Society,3, 281–291.
APA Seçmen S, süyük makaklı e (2021). The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. , 1 - 24.
Chicago Seçmen Serengül,süyük makaklı elif The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. (2021): 1 - 24.
MLA Seçmen Serengül,süyük makaklı elif The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. , 2021, ss.1 - 24.
AMA Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. . 2021; 1 - 24.
Vancouver Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. . 2021; 1 - 24.
IEEE Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e "The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent." , ss.1 - 24, 2021.
ISNAD Seçmen, Serengül - süyük makaklı, elif. "The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent". (2021), 1-24.
APA Seçmen S, süyük makaklı e (2021). The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, 9(1), 1 - 24.
Chicago Seçmen Serengül,süyük makaklı elif The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning 9, no.1 (2021): 1 - 24.
MLA Seçmen Serengül,süyük makaklı elif The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, vol.9, no.1, 2021, ss.1 - 24.
AMA Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning. 2021; 9(1): 1 - 24.
Vancouver Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning. 2021; 9(1): 1 - 24.
IEEE Seçmen S,süyük makaklı e "The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent." ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, 9, ss.1 - 24, 2021.
ISNAD Seçmen, Serengül - süyük makaklı, elif. "The Urban and Architectural Characteristics of Voyvoda Street fromPast toPresent". ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning 9/1 (2021), 1-24.