The city of Erzurum is an old settlement, which originates from very old dates and has experienced huge transformations resulting from natural processes. The city, which was affected largely by several civilisations founded on itself and shelters their traces and heritages even now, was finally beaten by an urbanisation understanding in which modernisation and complexity are dominant features. The best and the clearest examples of this transformation can be seen on the historical-featured monuments, traditional houses and in ancient neighbourhoods and sub-streets. These changes not only destroyed the structures of historical core of the city, which was composed of traditional neighbourhood understanding, street structure, stone houses, and urban equipment elements but also cultural and social structure. The aim of the study is to reveal the conditions of cultural heritages in Erzurum city, which were destroyed, transformed and faced to extinct in time by focusing how big the extents of devastation are even in a single year. In the study, development plan in 1986 was considered as base map in order to determine the changes in traditional urban tissue inside the boundaries of first and the third degree archaeological sit areas and urban sit areas and one-year changes between 2006 and 2007 were determined by field-surveying. It was found that the area whose present conditions were determined in 2006 was largely destroyed compared to development plan in 1986. In the evaluation conducted in 2006, there existed thirteen houses, which were in use and inventoried as strong enough; three houses, which were not in use but inventoried as strong enough; one house, which was partly destroyed and had inventory while all of twenty-one inventoried houses were fully destroyed. Among the traditional houses, which were not inventoried, twenty-two were determined to be in use and strong enough, seven were not in use but strong enough; sixteen were partly destroyed while thirty-three were fully destroyed. It was also determined that mosques, hamams (Turkish baths), cemeteries, tombs (kumbet), medreseh, fortress and fountains survive, and the number of garden walls reduced only to four.In 2007, field survey was repeated and the counts were updated. Found data were processed on the development plan again. According to the findings, there exist thirteen houses in use and inventoried as strong; three houses not in use but inventoried as strong; and one partly destroyed and inventoried. Among the traditional houses which are not inventoried, twenty – one were found to be in use and strong; six not in use but strong enough; eleven partly destroyed while thirty one were determined to be fully demolished. It was determined again that mosques, hamams (Turkish baths), cemeteries, tombs (kumbet), medreseh, fortress and fountains survive, and the number of garden walls reduced only to four. Consequently, it was found that there was no devastation on the inventoried traditional houses while twelve percent of those not inventoried were fully destroyed. The reason for not changing the number and use conditions of the inventoried houses in this period is that these houses are under absolute conservation status and therefore, they cannot be demolished, changed, and attached with new structures. However, the same conditions are not valid for the houses, which are not inventoried. They can be deliberately demolished, some new structures can be attached with them, and they are not carefully maintained. Huge concrete buildings are constructed in the place of the demolished traditional houses, which were deliberately demolished and destroyed. When considered the historical core of the city of Erzurum on neighbourhood scale, it was found that historical urban tissue and the understanding of traditional neighbourhood disappeared because of new constructions. These losses in the city are unfortunates of many newly developing cities. In avoidance of this fate, the biggest responsibility is taken by local administrations. Planning maps should be prepared in details. At this stage, economic and social development policies of the city should also be considered. Reconstructions should be avoided in historical urban tissue as possible. Another crucial care is the record of historical urban tissue in inventories However, these recorded data should be preserved not only on the scales of buildings but also include historical urban core, streets and sub-streets with some features such as topography. In the determination of the conservation states, buildings should not be evaluated individually but in combination with urban tissue important to perform interdisciplinary works in the preservation of historical urban core.