20.yüzyýlýn baþlarýnda sanayileþmenin getirdiði sosyo-ekonomik sorunlar ve yeniden yapýlanma süreçleri tartýþýlýrken, 21.yüzyýla girerken sanayi sonrasý toplumlardaki dönüþüm süreci ve buna paralel olarak geliþen küresel deðiþimler gündeme gelmiþtir. Küreselleþmeyle birlikte sanayi toplumundan bilgi toplumuna geçiþ süreci, sosyal ve ekonomik politikalarda olduðu gibi, özellikle geliþmekte olan ülkelerin kentleþme süreçlerinde de önemli deðiþikliklere neden olmuþtur. Sanayi sektörünün yerini hizmetler sektörüne býrakmasý, kentlerin sosyo-ekonomik yapýsýyla birlikte arazi kullanýþ desenlerini de etkilemiþtir. Bu süreç içinde uygulanan desantralizasyon politikalarý ile kent merkezlerinden geri çekilen sanayi fonksiyonunun boþalttýðý alanlarýn nasýl deðerlendirilmesi gerektiði konusu önem kazanmýþtýr. Bu noktada ‘Kentsel Dönüþüm’ kavramý, kentsel planlamanýn önemli bir enstrümaný olarak ön plana çýkmýþtýr.
Çalýþma kapsamýnda, sanayisizleþme süreci sonucunda kentsel kýyý alanlarýnda konumlanan atýl kalmýþ sanayi alanlarý, kentsel dönüþüm baðlamýnda irdelenmiþ ve benzer özellik gösteren Haliç kýyýsýnda konumlanan tersaneler bölgesi ve geri alaný bu çerçevede deðerlendirilmiþtir. Varsayýmlar doðrultusunda çalýþma alanýndaki kentsel dönüþüm sürecinde
etken olmasý beklenen faktörler irdelenmiþ ve elde edilen sonuçlara göre bu faktörlerin kentsel dönüþüm sürecine olasý etkileri ortaya konmuþtur.

While in the beginning of the 20th century the socio-economic problems and restructuring issues brought by industrialization were being discussing, towards the 21st century the global factors in parallel with the transformation process of post industrial societies are started to be discussed. Supported by the globalization process of transition through industrial society to information society, besides the social and economical politics, it has also considerable modifications especially on urbanization process of developing countries. The installation of services instead the industrial sector is effected the socio-economic organization and the land use patterns of the cities. Though the implementation of decentralization politics, the approaches in order how to maintain the retreated industrial areas in the centre of cities rather gained importance. At this point, the ‘Urban Transformation’ concept is brought forth as a fundamental instrument of urban planning.
In the scope of this paper, the retreated industrial areas during the deindustrialization process are examined and in accordance with this study the naval dock yard region and its hinterland in the Golden Horn is evaluated as a case study.
According to the assumptions, potential factors which affect the urban transformation process of the region are inquired and outcomes are put forward.

Abstract | Full Text PDF

Çalýþma üç ana baþlýkta yapýlmýþtýr. Giriþ bölümünde Yugoslavya’nýn daðýlma süreci, sosyalist kent kuramlarý ve sosyalist kentte konut alanlarý tariflenmiþ, çalýþmanýn kapsamý açýklanmýþtýr. Ýkinci bölümde; Bosna – Hersek’in deðiþen konut politikasý, sadece Yugoslavya daðýldýktan Bosna – Hersek kurulduktan sonraki dönemi irdeleyerek deðil, ayný zamanda Yugoslavya’dan devralýnan konut politikasý baðlamýnda 1950’lilerden itibaren ele alýnmýþtýr. Üçüncü ve son bölümde ise; Bosna – Hersek’te yürütülmüþ olan konut politikalarýnýn Mostar’a nasýl yansýdýðý, 1950’lilerden itibaren kentin konut alanlarýnýn kent yerleþimini nasýl etkilediði, savaþla deðiþen politik sistemin kente yansýmalarý incelenerek, mevcut konut politikasý baðlamýnda kentin yeni yerleþim alanlarýna yönelik çýkarýmlar yapýlmaya çalýþýlmýþtýr.

The study composes of three main topics. Yugoslavia’s separation process, socialist city theories and housing areas in socialist cities have been described and the scope of the study has been explained in the introduction section. In the second section; Bosnia – Herzegovina’s changing housing policy has been examined not only by including the period
after Yugoslavia’s separation and establishment of Bosnia – Herzegovina but also the period starting from 1950s in terms of housing policy taken from Yugoslavia. In the third and final section; the reflection of housing policies conducted in Bosnia – Herzergovina to the city Mostar, the impact of the housing areas of the city on the city settlement since 1950s
and the reflection of the political system changing with the war on the city have been studied and inferences have been made regarding the city’s new settlement areas in the context of the current housing policy.

Abstract | Full Text PDF

Abstract | Full Text PDF

Ondokuzuncu yüzyýlýn ortalarýndan itibaren yabancý mimar ve mühendislerin Osmanlý Ýmparatorluðu’nun baþkentinde faaliyet gösterdikleri bilinmektedir. Ancak, en az onlar kadar önemli olan yabancý kalfalarýn isimleri bugün kapsamlý bir araþtýrmanýn konusu olmamýþtýr. Ýsimlerinin ve faaliyetlerinin yeterli derecede bilinmemesi onlarýn devletle olan baðlantýlarýný kurmamýzý da güçleþtirmektedir. Yabancý mimarlar için bu baðlantýyý kurmak daha kolay olmaktadýr. Yabancý mimarlarýn devletle yaptýklarý iþ sözleþmeleri kayýtlý olmasýna ve bu sözleþmelerin onlarýn genel çalýþma koþullarýný tarif etmesine raðmen, kalfalarýn parça baþý iþlere göre ücret almalarý, götürü usulü iþ yapmalarý ve her inþaat iþinin farklý örgütlenmesi yabancý kalfalar ve devletin iliþkilerinde iþe göre deðiþen bazý durumlarý ortaya çýkarmaktaydý. Bunun ötesinde yetkin bir finans ve hukuk sisteminin kurulmamasý yabancý kalfalarýn inþaat iþlerinden doðan devletle olan anlaþmazlýklarýnda uluslararasý krize sebep olabilmekteydi. Bu durum ayný zamanda bir inþaat alacaðý konusunda bir kaç farklý kararýn alýnmasýna, davalarýn uzamasýna ve keyfi karar verilmesine yol açan pek çok ciddi sorunu da beraberinde getirmekteydi. Diðer bir deyiþle, hak ve sorumluluklarla sýnýrlarý çizilmeyen ve her inþaat iþine göre deðiþen kalfa-devlet pozisyonu “ara kadrolarýn” da devreye girmesiyle olaylarý daha karmaþýk bir noktaya sürüklemekteydi. Bu makalede, Abdülaziz döneminde Küçüksu Kasrý’nýn kapsamlý tamiratýný gerçekleþtiren Rus Konstantin Kalfa’nýn devletle olan alacak davasýndaki süreç, söz konusu olan bakýþ açýlarýyla ele alýnmýþtýr. Dönemin diðer kalfalarý gibi, inþaat iþlerini finanse etmek için banker Mösyö Lorando’ya borçlanan Konstantin Kalfa’nýn, devletin inþaat borcunu ödememesi sebebiyle bankere olan borcunun üstüne binen faiz yükü yüzünden Rusya’daki malýnýn mülkünün satýlmasýna St. Petersbourg senatosu tarafýndan karar verilmiþtir. Rus Konstantin Kalfa, sarraf, banker gibi “ara kadrolar”ý devreye sokarak rüþvetle iþini çözümlemek için çeþitli yollara baþvurmuþtur. Bürokrat-kalfa ve ikisinin arasýnda köprü vazifesi gören “ara kadrolar”ýn hem etnik köken hem de çýkar iliþkileri baðlamýnda deðiþkenlik gösteren konumlarý ve statüleri dikkat çekicidir. Osmanlý-Rus Savaþý’nýn patlak vermesiyle Rus Konstantin Kalfa’nýn devletle inþaat alacaklarýndan kaynaklanan davasý uluslararasý bir boyut kazanarak çözümsüzlüðe sürüklenmiþ ve alacak davasý otuz sene ödenmeyen borç yüzünden oðlu tarafýndan sürdürülmüþtür.

It is known that foreign architects and engineers have worked in the capital city of the Ottoman Empire as from the mid nineteenth century. Names of foreign master builders, however, at least as important as these architects and engineers, have not been made a subject of any comprehensive research. We face difficulties in establishing their relations with the State because of inadequate information regarding their names and activities. Such relations are easier to establish for foreign architects. Work contracts between foreign architects and the State were recorded and included a description of their general working conditions. The status, however, varied in the relations of foreign master builders and the State on the basis of work type because master builders were paid on piecework, work was performed on a lump sum basis, and each construction work was organized differently. Furthermore, the lack of an effective finance and law system could cause international crisis in the disputes between foreign master builders and the State arising out of the monies owed to the former by the latter. This situation brought about extremely serious problems including more than one decision with respect to a construction claim, time consuming court actions and arbitrary court decisions. In other words, the master builder – State position which was not defined under rights and responsibilities, and varied with every construction work, instigated a more confused state of affairs with the added involvement of “intermediate staff” too.
In this article, the action of debt filed against the State by the Russian Master Builder Konstantin, who realized a comprehensive repair of the Küçüksu Summer Palace in the reign of Abdülaziz, is discussed with these perspectives. Like the other master builders of the period, Master Builder Konstantin borrowed money from Mösyö Lorando, a banker, in order to finance the construction work. The State, however, did not pay the money owed to Konstantin, whose properties in Russia were sold with the decision of the St. Petersburg Senate because of the interest which accrued on the loan he borrowed from the banker. The Russian Master Builder Konstantin tried various means to solve his problem through bribery with the mediation of “intermediate staff” like money changers and bankers. Positions and statuses of bureaucrat-master builder and the “intermediate staff” functioning as a bridge between the two, which varied according to both ethnicity and advantage relations is interesting to note. With the declaration of the Ottoman – Russian War, the debt action for the construction claims of the Russian Master Builder Konstantin gained an international dimension and was not solved. The action was continued by Konstantin’s son for the State’s debt which remained unpaid for thirty years.

Abstract | Full Text PDF