BOOK REVIEWS METU JFA 2005/2 91jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/0258-5316/2005/cilt22/sayi_2/91-106.pdf · in the territories of the Ottoman Empire in general and in the Balkans in particular

A catalogue published on the occasionof the exhibition with the same nameopened at the Royal Academy of Arts,in London, 22 January – 12 April 2005,edited by David J. Roxburgh, one of thefive curators of the exhibition.

The exhibition material are lent bymuseums and libraries in Ýstanbul,Berlin, Vienna, London, Paris, Konya,Diyarbakýr, Cambridge, Oxford, Dublin,New York, Lisbon, Leeds, St Petersburg,Doha and the Hague (376 pieces).Though the cities outside of Turkeyoutnumbers the cities in Turkey in thislist, the main bulk of the material isgathered from the museums andlibraries in Turkey (248 pieces), amongthem mostly from Topkapý SarayýMüzesi (184 pieces). The works of artare numbered in chronological order inthe entries section of the catalogue (95pages). Date, source, holding collectionand selected references accompanyillustration of each piece together withmeticulous description by an expert ofTurkish art. The entries section isvaluable since greater part of thedescriptions collects recent scholarshipon the exhibition material. With thechapters on the history, religion, landsand dynasties of the Turks and one or

double page illustrations dispersedamong the articles, the book reaches acolossal size, 496 pages.

Sir Nicholas Grimshaw, President of theRoyal Academy of Arts, in his forewordto the catalogue, relates the opening ofthe exhibition to the ongoing “debateconcerning Turkey’s relationship withthe European Union”. The exhibitionthen aims at introducing Turkish historyand culture to international publicthrough artifacts of various mediacollected from the lands where theTurks lived or ruled between 600-1600.The exhibition is timely antedating theUK presidency of the EU, 01 July – 31December 2005, which covers thebeginning of negotiations for themembership of Turkey. UK supports themembership, hence the exhibition.

The foreword to the catalogue writtenby Prime Minister of Great Britain, TonyBlair, gives the main idea behind theproject: “The story of the Turkic peoplesas they moved westwards over a periodof a thousand years, mixing with theother vibrant civilizations theyencountered, was to culminate in one ofthe greatest empires the world has everknown”. The exhibition illustrates this

BOOK REVIEWS 91METU JFA 2005/2

DAVID J. ROXBURGH (ED.)

TTUURRKKSS:: AA JJOOUURRNNEEYY OOFF AA TTHHOOUUSSAANNDD YYEEAARRSS,, 660000--11660000

DDAAVVIIDD JJ.. RROOXXBBUURRGGHH ((EEDD..)),, TTUURRKKSS:: AA JJOOUURRNNEEYY OOFF AA TTHHOOUUSSAANNDDYYEEAARRSS,, 660000--11660000..

((LLoonnddoonn,, RRooyyaall AAccaaddeemmyy ooff AArrttss,, 22000055))..EExxhhiibbiittiioonn CCaattaalloogguuee,, iilllluussttrraatteedd,, 449966 pp..

IISSBBNN:: 11--990033--9977335577--00

story and the catalogue portrays itscultural contexts through articles andentries. The catalogue will be one of theprimary sources for the readers andstudents of Turkish art and culture,because for the first time, the progress(‘journey’) of the Turks from CentralAsia to Balkans through ages isexhibited providing a kaleidoscopicvision of its different segments andinformation on these.

The book is divided into three mainchapters. The first chapter is in the formof an introduction including twoarticles: “Turks: A Historical Overview”by Peter B. Golden and “Religion of theTurks in the Pre-Islamic Period” byPeter Zieme. Peter B. Golden’schronology of Turkish history followsthe introduction. In the second chapterunder the general heading, ‘catalogue’,six articles focus on the main divisionsof the exhibition material: “Central Asia,600-1000” by Marianne Yaldýz; “TheSeljuks of Iran and Their Successors” byOya Pancaroðlu; “The Seljuks andArtuqids of Medieaval Anatolia” byNazan Ölçer; “Muhammed of the BlackPen and His Paintings” by FilizÇaðman; “The Timurids and Turkmen”by David J. Roxburgh, “The Ottomansfrom Mehmed II to Murad III” by SerpilBaðcý and Zeren Tanýndý. The catalogueentries and two appendixes follow this

section: “The Ottoman Sultans as Poets”by Mustafa Ýsen and “The TurkicLanguages“ by Osman Fikri Sertkaya.

The quality and content of the articlesare fine. They help visitors and generalreader understand art and culturalhistory of the Turks. However, a crucialinconsistency in this chapter should bepointed out: Peter Zieme in referring toRobert Dankoff states that “there is noevidence of shamanism in the Orkhoninscriptions or in later documents…

Whether early Turkic societies hadshamans or not remains open toquestion” (p. 34). Conversely, NazanÖlçer explains Anatolian Seljukiconography with the influence of‘Central Asian shamanism’ on page 109.This ‘shamanism myth’ still regrettablydominates iconographical studies onSeljuk art, although challenged byspecialists of religion and art history.

As has been customary in the exhibitioncatalogues on Turkish art, architectureoccupies only an indirect and minorplace. Seljuk architecture in Iran (pp 73-5) and Anatolia (pp.107-108), Timuridarchitecture in Iran (pp. 195-6) andOttoman architecture in Balkans,Anatolia and the Middle East (pp. 267-8)cover only nine pages in the secondchapter. The entries section does notcontain any architectural piece like an

BOOK REVIEWS92 METU JFA 2005/2

arch, a capital, a blind arcade etc., whichwould give an idea on urban andarchitectural history of the Turks. Anendowment deed from Sivas (cat. 93),Timurid-Turkmen roll of geometricdecorative patterns (so-called TopkapýScroll, cat. 223) and architecturaldecorative fragments from Afghanistan(cat. 39), Iran (cat. 41), Konya (cat. 58-69), Central Asia (cat. 149-50), Bukhara(cat. 151-152), Uzbekistan (cat. 153) andÝznik (cat. 327-29) in the form of mainlytiles and sculptures, are far fromdemonstrating how the Turks inhabitedin any of the lands this catalogue puts inthe picture.

Urban history of the Turkish groups inCentral Asia and Anatolia has nomention as well. Central Asiatic ‘citystates’ is used as a historical term (p.43), but there is no information onurban characteristics, life, culture andhistory; no maps, and plans. In point offact, the catalogue is not equipped withhigh-quality maps, which areinescapable in such an extensive surveyof historical topography. The map onpages 16-17 only gives political bordersof the Turkic dominions as do the otherson pages 21, 26, 27, 29, 30. One shouldbe reminded that there is no mention of‘art’ in the title of this exhibition, whichstirs up expectations to find clues onbuilt-environment in Turkish lands. Itseems we still have a long way beforeus to arrive at exhibitions on ‘Turkishculture’ embracing architecture andurban history.

Visitors of the exhibition and readers ofthe catalogue would ask: Why this

overview of Turkish art and historycomes to an end with the sixteenthcentury? Would the answer be that it isbecause of the prevailing “declinemyth”? Probably so! In the lastparagraph of the article by Baðcý andTanýndý, later centuries are portrayed ascenturies of economic, financial, militaryand political setbacks and decline (p.271).

The bringing together of finest objectsattributed to the Turks and representingthem with individual descriptions in acatalogue create admiration for Turks asart patrons and approval of the Turkishreality in history, which were the maintargets behind the organization of theexhibition. Until today, Seljuk culture inIran has been regarded as part ofPersian civilization, andreligious/dynastic names have alwaysbeen preferred to the terms ‘Turkish’and ‘Turk’ in art history books. Fromthis perspective, the exhibition and thiscatalogue single out as being boldattempts to give credit to the ‘Turk’ inworld art history. But, except being anintroduction to the beauties of Turkishart and culture, this catalogue lacksinsights into the life of people. Theexhibition and the catalogue were notbased on this concept from the start.Nevertheless, this defect is pardonable,since the splendor of the art works andthe enormous work done by thecontributors dazzle the eye.

AAllii UUzzaayy PPEEKKEERR

Middle East Technical University,Ankara


The century long period from 1820s to1920s is characterized by a series ofradical political changes that took placein the territories of the Ottoman Empirein general and in the Balkans inparticular. New nation-states were bornin the Balkans following successive warsof independence against the Empirefrom the early nineteenth century till theBalkan Wars of 1912-1913. The ferventnationalism and will for modernizationwere the two driving forces of thenation building process in the youngBalkan States. Once the independencewas obtained, the reorganization of theexisting urban framework constitutedan issue of priority. Cities were subjectto substantial spatial transformations inthis period as a result of deliberate actsof demolition and reconstruction of theurban fabric coupled with the urbanregulations enacted. The remaking ofthe city was perceived by the newregimes as an expression of both themodernization and the construction oftheir national identities. It was also seenas a means of economic growth in theprocess of the construction of nationaleconomies by the young Balkan states.Interestingly enough, urban regulationsaiming at a gradual remodeling of theOttoman urban fabric according toWestern precepts were simultaneouslydecreed by the Ottoman governments inthe framework of the Tanzimat reformsand operations on urban space were putinto implementation in the cities of theEmpire. The modernization of urbanspace was an integral part of theOttoman reform movement from itsstart onwards.

In her book Urban Transformations inthe Balkans (1820-1920), Aspects ofBalkan Town Planning and theRemaking of Thessaloniki, AlexandraYerolympos draws attention to thesimilar aspects of the urban remodelingattempts in the different countries of theBalkans. While the first part of the bookfocuses on the comparative study of therestructuring of cities and enactment ofthe first “modern” planning laws in theBalkan States, the second partconcentrates on the modernizationattempts undertaken by the reform-

oriented Ottoman authorities inThessaloniki (Selânik) and inAdrianople (Edirne) at the turn of thecentury. Yerolympos particularlystresses the peculiarity of the townplanning experience in this part of theworld “situated between powerfulmetropolitan states and colonizedterritories”, and which “provide anintermediate link in the history of townmaking”. Published in 1996, UrbanTransformations in the Balkans (1820-1920), is a fundamental source,extremely well illustrated with a richcollection of original plans anddocuments. It provides the reader witha comparative perspective on the townplanning history of the Balkans in theparticular context of nation-buildingand modernization process.

Alexandra Yerolympos, who isprofessor of urban planning at theSchool of Architecture of the AristotleUniversity in Thessaloniki, is the authorof books and articles on the planninghistory of Greece, the Balkans and theOttoman Empire. Besides urban andplanning history, her teaching activityextends from planning legislation tourban design.

TThhee rreemmaakkiinngg ooff tthhee BBaallkkaann cciittiieess

The book is composed of five chapters,which are originally articles written ondifferent occasions and re-edited by theauthor under the common theme of“urban transformations in the Balkans”all through the nineteenth century andthe first two decades of the twentiethcentury. In the Introduction, the authorsets the problematique on the remakinghistory of the Balkan cities: Sharing acommon past, the fight for politicalemancipation in the Balkans was drivenby a desire for social, economic andcultural progress, i.e. “westernization”and the determination of getting rid ofthe Ottoman heritage, i.e. “de-ottomanization”. All through thenineteenth century, the young BalkanStates undertook urban operations to“recompose” their cities as anexpression of their “nationalrenaissance”, but also as a means ofeconomic growth and social progress.


ALEXANDRA YEROLYMPOS

UURRBBAANN TTRRAANNSSFFOORRMMAATTIIOONNSS IINN TTHHEE BBAALLKKAANNSS ((11882200--11992200)),, AASSPPEECCTTSS OOFFBBAALLKKAANN TTOOWWNN PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD TTHHEE RREEMMAAKKIINNGG OOFF TTHHEESSSSAALLOONNIIKKII

AALLEEXXAANNDDRRAA YYEERROOLLYYMMPPOOSS,,UURRBBAANN TTRRAANNSSFFOORRMMAATTIIOONNSS IINN TTHHEEBBAALLKKAANNSS ((11882200--11992200)),, AASSPPEECCTTSS OOFFBBAALLKKAANN TTOOWWNN PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD TTHHEERREEMMAAKKIINNGG OOFF TTHHEESSSSAALLOONNIIKKII,,

((UUnniivveerrssiittyy SSttuuddiioo PPrreessss,, FFiirrsstt eeddiittiioonn,,TThheessssaalloonniikkii,, 11999966)) iilllluussttrraatteedd,, 113377 pp..

IISSBBNN:: 996600--1122--00555533--55

The second chapter entitled “NewPlanning Ideals in the Balkans” displaysthe ideals and models of urbanismadapted in Romania, Greece, Serbia andBulgaria from the early nineteenth tothe beginning of the twentieth century.The author points out the similarity ofthe objectives set by the nationalauthorities: to erase all traces of the pastthat reminded the Ottoman rule and torebuild the cities in likeness with theirEuropean counterparts. Yet, eachcountry had its own specificitiesdepending on the level of urbanizationof the country and historicalcircumstances. Serbia had a lessdeveloped urban network when itgained its independence at thebeginning of the nineteenth century,while Bulgaria disposed of a tightlyinterwoven network of cities and townsat the end of the Ottoman period. Theurban models adopted for reshaping theBalkan cities displayed a variety rangingfrom the early neo-classical-colonialmodels to twentieth century schemes ofurbanism. However, in all the cases, theurban legislations and projects put intoimplementation reflected an aestheticalimagery inspired by the European city,i.e. an understanding of urbancomposition based on the rules ofgeometry. The national capitalsBucharest, Athens, Belgrade and Sofiawere completely transformed according

to neo-classical European models.Provincial cities and towns were alsosubject to total redesign based on idealmodels as in the case of Danubiantowns of Romania, or in the case ofNauplie, Patras, Tripoli, Aigion inGreece, remodeled on the basis ofHippodamean plan as an expression ofthe national identity at the beginning ofthe nineteenth century. EasternMacedonian cities, towns and villages,which were integrated in Greece afterthe Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 andmostly destroyed by the war, werereplanned this time according to theearly twentieth century schemes ofurbanism. Yerolympos points out that,except for the tabula rasa applied inSofia, “more realistic tendencies” inconsideration with “local conditions”were developed in Bulgaria at the endof the nineteenth century. The planningof Plovdiv (1891), which contents withthe widening of certain main streets andintroducing some public open spaces,exemplifies a respectful attitudetowards the historical city. The authorasserts that the reason for this canprobably be searched in the “NationalRevival” movement in architecture(1840-1878) that emerged in thiscountry, and which reappropriatedtraditional architectural features asnational values.

The last part of the chapter is reservedto the Ottoman modernization. Thoughnot explicitly articulated with thegeneral conceptual framework of thechapter, it makes a brief review of themodernization efforts in the OttomanEmpire following the Tanzimat reforms.The urban and building regulationssuccessively issued by the Ottomangovernments -which Yerolymposqualifies “a very interesting part of thenineteenth century planning history”-aimed at a progressive transformationof the Ottoman cities. These regulations,which imposed a regular urban layoutwith reference to the imagery of theEuropean city, were gradually put intoimplementation on the Ottoman urbanscene. Cities and towns of the Ottomanprovinces in the Balkans, which weremore exposed to western influencesthan other parts of the Empire,witnessed a significant development inthe second half of the nineteenthcentury. New economic and socialrelations that emerged due to growingrelations with the West and “the


New plan for the destroyed city of Patras byS. Bulgari, 1829; p.25.

dynamism of various ethnic groups”played an important role in thisdevelopment. The construction ofrailways and modern port installationscreated an effective transportationnetwork, which highly contributed tothe development of coastal cities inparticular. Urban operations based onregular plan layouts were implementedin the Ottoman provinces: thepioneering example of the extension ofVolos in 1845, was followed by that ofCavala (Kavala) in 1864, the founding ofthe new town of Dedeaðaç in 1878, thereconstruction of the center of Janina(Yanya) after the fire of 1869 and that ofEdirne in 1905. Thessaloniki (Selânik)and Monastir (Manastýr) were subject tooperations of modernization between1870 and 1890.

TThhee cchhaannggiinngg uussee ooff cciittyy wwaallllss aanndd tthheeooppeenniinngg ooff tthhee ttrraaddiittiioonnaall cciittyy::TThheessssaalloonniikkii

The third chapter entitled “from thetraditional to the modern city” focuseson the changing uses of the city walls inthe Balkan provinces of the OttomanEmpire in general, and the role theyplayed in the extension of the city ofThessaloniki in particular. It is wellknown that the demolition of the oldcity walls played a crucial role in thereorganization of urban space andurban expansion in European cities allthrough the nineteenth century.According to the author, while thenineteenth century transformations inOttoman cities can be placed within thesame general context, they also stemfrom certain particularities. The use ofurban fortifications in the Ottomanprovinces in the Balkans presentedsome specificity. Their role changed ineach case in relation with thegeographic location of the settlementand the historical circumstances. Certaintowns, which spontaneously developedin the Ottoman period, were neversurrounded by walls. Others, which hadbeen fortified since the ancient timesextended outside the walls at the verybeginning of the Ottoman rule. Thedistricts formed outside thefortifications were called “varosh” –aword used in almost all Balkan cities. Athird group consists of cities, whichwere surrounded by walls since theByzantine times or earlier, and whereany settlement outside the walls wasstrictly forbidden all through the

Ottoman rule until the mid nineteenthcentury. Volos, Cavala and Thessalonikiwere such cities, all situated on thecoast.

The demolition of the sea walls and thatof the eastern walls in Thessaloniki(Selânik), in the second half of thenineteenth century, marked a turningpoint in the history of the city. The firstoperation was undertaken by thegovernor Sabri Pasha, who wasrepresentative of the influential valifigure of the Tanzimat period. Thedemolition of the sea walls came intothe agenda as part of the comprehensiveproject of construction of the port in1869. The project was put forwardalmost simultaneously with thebeginning of the construction of the portof Smyrna (Ýzmir). However, inThessaloniki (Selânik) the constructionof the port was undertaken by thePublic Works Department of the Vilayet,i.e. directly by the Ottomangovernment, as different from the caseof Ýzmir where the operation wasinitiated and conducted by theenterprises of foreign capital (11). Yet, theproject in Thessaloniki, as similar to theoperation in Ýzmir, brought forth thecreation of a strip of urban plots byfilling up of the sea, to be sold to privateinvestors by auctions in order to financethe construction of the port. The seawalls were demolished in 1870, and thematerial from demolition was used forfilling the sea. The operation, whichstarted as a success story, confronted,however, many problems going furtherto the breaking off of the construction.When the construction was completedfinally in 1880, a strip of land of 1650meters with a line of quays of 12 meterswide was accomplished. The authorpoints out that the new Quays ofThessaloniki was “the most importantplanning operation ever undertaken bythe Ottoman administration” in theregion. The principal aim of the projectwas to open the old city to the sea,while providing space not only for theport facilities but also for centralactivities ranging from administration tofinancial uses and production. The stripof land created by the demolition of thesea walls and filling of the sea, was soldto the European investors and the richfrom all religious communities of thecity. With the “attractive buildings”constructed, the waterfront gained a“westernized” appearance, and became


“the center of the economic and sociallife of the city”, as AlexandraYerolympos conclude. In this part, theauthor compares the history of theoperation in Thessaloniki with that ofthe port of Ýzmir in particular. Indeed, acomparative in depth analysis of bothcases will certainly provide valuableinformation on different aspects of theOttoman urban modernization projectand its actors, as well as modelsdeveloped in this objective.

The second operation concerns asignificant residential developmentproject in which the Sultan himself was

directly implicated. In 1879, even beforethe demolition of the east wall ofThessaloniki, a project was developedon the area occupied by the wall, thestrip of land belonging to the imperialfamily and the adjacent properties toreligious waqfs. The project wasdesigned around a boulevard, 18 meterswide and planted with trees, called theHamidiye Boulevard after the name ofthe Sultan. It extended between theWhite Tower on the south and a squareon its upper end. The developmentproject included other perpendicularstreets of 12, 9 and 7.5 meters inconformity with the urban regulation of1864, and regular rectangular blocks.The houses built on the imperialproperty were designed identicallyaccording to the plans prepared by thearchitects sent from the capital. Called“Sultanik” (originally “Sultanî”probably), they became very popularamongst the rich European andChristian inhabitants of the city. Thispilot operation, which the authorpresents in its details, was significant intwo respects: First, it was an exemplaryproject that officially allowed theplanned extension of the city outside thewalls. Secondly it was a housingdevelopment project in which theOttoman Sultan was directly involved.The houses, as in the case of Akaretlerin Istanbul, were designed by theimperial architects, and built to berented in order to bring income. Theproject of Hamidiye Boulevard inThessaloniki certainly constitutes animportant case for the history ofurbanism and architecture of the lateOttoman period.

EEddiirrnnee iinn tthhee sseeccoonndd hhaallff ooff tthheenniinneetteeeenntthh cceennttuurryy:: tthhee ““ddeecclliinnee ooff aattrraaddiittiioonnaall cciittyy””

The fifth chapter is a monographicstudy on the city of Edirne and thetransformations that took place in theintra-muros city at the turn of thecentury. The administrative andcommercial center of the Thrace,Adrianople (Edirne) was one of themost important cities of the EuropeanTurkey until the first decades of thenineteenth century. The Russo-Turkishwar of 1828-29 and its occupation by theRussian army in 1829, by the Frencharmy during the Crimean war of 1854-1856, and the Russian invasion in 1877,


(11) Mübahat Kütükoðlu (2000) “Ýzmir rýhtýmýinþaatý ve iþletme imtiyazatý”, ÝzmirTarihinden Keþitler, Ýzmir; 201-207; and F.Cânâ Bilsel, “Vers une Métropole Modernede la Méditerranée”, in Marie-CarmenSmyrnelis (ed.), Smyrne 1830-1930: De lafortune à l’oubli, Éditions Autrement, Paris(to be published in January 2006).

Sofia in 1878 and after 1880. Traditionallayout and new plan by C. Amadier and B.Roubal; p.49.

caused disruption and unrest in the city.At the end of the Russo-Turkish war of1877-78, Edirne became a frontier cityhaving lost an important part of itshinterland. Although it was the first cityconnected to Ýstanbul with theconstruction of the Oriental Railway linein 1869, this situation did not stop itseconomic and demographic recession.The growing maritime transportationwith the opening of the Suez Canalcontributed to the development of theport cities in the region, Thessaloniki,Cavala, Dedeaðaç, while the urbancenters inland notably regressed.Thessaloniki (Selânik), surpassed Edirnein population and economic activity inthe second half of the nineteenthcentury.

After having set the geographical-historical context, AlexandraYerolympos concentrates on the studyof the socio-spatial morphology of thecity of Edirne, making use of the writtenand graphic sources. The Pland’Adrianople, dating from 1854, is aninvaluable cartographic document thatrepresents the urban fabric withexactitude. It is a plan prepared byOsmont, chef d’escadron in the Frencharmy, which occupied Edirne during theCrimean War. It was probably preparedfor a project of fortification around thecity. The Osmont plan of Adrianopledrawn in 1:10 000 scale, has an index of200 buildings, mosques, churches andsynagogues included, hence givingclues about the ethnic-religioustopography of the city in mid-nineteenth century. The index of theplan is organized in two parts: the cityextra-muros and intra-muros (Kaleiçi).The regular plan layout inside the citywalls contrasts with the “informal”layout of the surrounding districts. Thegrid-iron street layout of the ancientAdrianopolis survived although the citywas destroyed by multiple fires andearthquakes, and reconstructed manytimes all through its history. Kaleiçi isinhabited by non-muslim communities,the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jewsin the mid-nineteenth century as thenumber of old and new churches andsynagogues witness. The presence ofmosques and the names of streets pointout that the muslims had lived also inKaleiçi in the previous periods, but theymoved to the surrounding districtsoutside the walls. The author studies thesocial topography of the districts of both

Kaleiçi and Kaledýþý, dwelling on theGreek, Armenian and Jewish quarters inparticular. It is interesting to note,however, that although the quotationfrom the French geographer ElyséeReclus indicates that Bulgarians werepresent in Edirne and formed animportant community, AlexandraYerolympos does not mention anythingabout their districts in the city.

The second plan of the city which datesfrom 1885 is drawn by Mehmed Selâmi,who was professor of drawing in theMilitary School of Edirne. AlexandraYerolympos notes that there appearvery little changes in the urban fabricwhen the plans of 1854 and that of 1885are compared. Only the Karaaðaçdistrict, where the railway station wasconstructed, extended, but there is noother major development that occurredin these thirty years. This can certainlybe explained by the economic anddemographic recession of the city in thisperiod.

In August 1905, a fire devastated thegreatest part of Kaleiçi –the intra-murosdistricts.

A plan for the reconstruction of thesedistricts was prepared by the municipalauthorities, in conformity with theurban regulations of 1891. The mayorDilâver Bey directed the works.Reconstruction of the districts destroyedby fire was perceived, by the reformoriented Ottoman authorities, as aneffective means of regularizing theurban fabric. Regular reconstructionplans in conformity with urban andbuilding regulations were implementedin Ýstanbul and other cities of theEmpire since mid-nineteenth century(22). The same method was also appliedin Edirne for the reconstruction ofKaleiçi. The Roman grid-iron layout ofthe intra-muros city was recreated in asense with open streets intersectingperpendicularly. However, AlexandraYerolympos points out to an“interesting feature” of the 1905 plan:the urban blocks were planned muchsmaller in comparison to the originalones. This was probably an outcome ofthe over fragmentation of propertiesand the necessity of planning all theparcels on streets, as the regulation didnot permit to locate parcels in themiddle of urban blocks.


The author concludes her study onAdrianople/Edirne by mentioningbriefly the population exchangebetween Greece and Turkey at thebeginning of 1920s. The multiple socialstructure of the city, as that of the othersin the region, has completely changedwith the new political picture (p. 84):

“The few remaining Greeks fled out insearch of new homes in nationalterritory. Somewhere on the road theymight have crossed the Turks leavingthe Macedonian cities, Thessaloniki,Serres, Cavala. For some of them,without their knowing, there mighthave been a mutual exchange of homes.The colourful polyethnic cities in thearea would continue to live with newhomogenous populations”.

I would rather argue that in fact, theprocess of homogenization on the basisof national identities, which had begunwith the creation of the first nation-states in the Balkans a century before,was being completed with the end ofthe Ottoman Empire.

RReemmaakkiinngg ooff TThheessssaalloonniikkii aafftteerr tthhee ffiirreeooff 11991177

The last chapter of the book consists ofan in depth study of the unique processof planning and reconstruction ofThessaloniki after the fire of 1917,within a very special politicalconjuncture (33). Following the Balkanwars of 1912-1913, Thessaloniki whichhad been at the center of disputesamong different Balkan states, was

finally integrated within the territoriesof Greece. A few years later, the fire,which began in the north-west edge ofthe city center, rapidly spread anddevastated most of the old city, an areaof 128 hectares, including its center ofcommerce and business. The bazaarsand modern shopping areas, banks,hotels, warehouses, three Byzantinechurches, ten mosques and sixteensynagogues, European consulates andmany school buildings were completelydestroyed. 70.000 inhabitants foundthemselves homeless.

The rapidity and determination withwhich the Greek government acted forthe reconstruction of the city cancertainly be explained by its being aquestion of the highest nationalimportance. The policies of the LiberalGovernment headed by the prime-minister Eleftherios Venizelosdetermined not only the decision ofdirecting the reconstruction on the basisof planning but also the whole processof its implementation. AlexandraYerolympos finds the process ofplanning and reconstruction ofThessaloniki unique in many respects.First, the government decides toproceed by obtaining a master plan. Theauthor asserts that at that point, theconvictions of the government to thepossibility of achieving social progressthrough socio-economic developmentcoincides with the social reformist basesof the town planning movement thatconceives total reorganization of urbanspace as an effective tool for socialprogress. The planning of Thessalonikiconstitutes a pioneering experience oftown planning in Europe besides thecolonial experiences of the same period.

Thessaloniki before the fire presentedthe aspect of a “medieval” city,although certain transformations hadbegun in the late Ottoman period. It wasa “multilingual, multi religious society”formed of Christian, Jewish and Muslimcommunities organized in separateneighborhoods. Although new forms ofsocial stratification based onsocioeconomic differentiation emergedin the new quarters outside the citywalls, the old city remained intact alsoin its age old social structure. The fire of1917 which burnt down most of theseold quarters, it offered the occasion tochange the existing social relations, todissolve the community structures


(22) The author studied the issue in herarticle, Alexandra Yerolympos (2002) “Urbanspace as ‘field’ : Aspects of Late OttomanTown Planning after fires”, in GenevièveMassard-Guilbaud, Harold L. Platt, DieterSchott (eds.), Cities and Carastrophes, Villeset Catastrophes, Peter Lang, Frankfurt amMain, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York,Oxford, Wien. See also Stéphane Yerasimos(1993) “Istanbul ou l’urbanisme par le feu”,in Stéphane Yerasimos and Frank Friès(eds.), La Ville en Feu, m Recherche Cahiers,Laboratoire de Théorie des MutationsUrbaines, Université de Paris VIII - InstitutFrançais d’Urbanisme, Cahiers, n. 6-7,septembre-décembre 1993; 26-36.

Plan of the historical centre of Thessalonikiby Ernest Hébrard, 1918; p.96.

tightly bound to the urban space and itsconfiguration. Fires had devastated thecity’s neighborhoods many times in itshistory. But each time they werereconstructed by their inhabitants, in thesame way they had been, reproducingthe existing community relations. Theproject of modernization of the Liberalgovernment in Greece concerned notonly that of the urban space in itstotality, but that of the social relations inparticular.

The first decision taken by thegovernment was to prohibit the ownersto rebuild their houses and buildings. Itwas decided “not to let Thessaloniki tobe built on the same lines as before”.The whole system of landownership aswell as the preexisting patterns of land-use and occupational patterns in spacewere meant to be changed. According tothe author, the conviction of the Liberalgovernment in the necessity ofdetaching the inhabitants from theirtraditional environment in order toinduce them to become competitiveindividuals, in other words “to realizetheir full economic capacity undercompetitive conditions”(p. 102) was thedriving motive behind the decision ofreplanning the city.

The government decided to form acommission of Greek, French andBritish architects and engineers for thepreparation of the planning scheme. TheFrench architect-urbanist ErnestHébrard, who was already inThessaloniki as the head of theArcheological Service of the FrenchArmy -while the First World War wascontinuing- was finally commissioned atthe head of the planning team. The teamwas composed of Joseph Pleyber,French military engineer, AristotleZachos, the Greek architect, andeighteen young French architects. Theappointment of Hébrard for this taskwas certainly not a coincidence. He wasa member of the circle of Frencharchitects who founded the Society ofFrench Urbanists, and contributed to theactivities of the Musée Social,association founded upon the ideals ofsocial reformism, which worked for theinstitutionalization of town planning inFrance.

The planning of Thessaloniki did notonly consist of a reconstruction plan. Itwas conceived as a master plan drawingthe basic lines of the future urban

extension. It was conceived as a plan fora population of 350.000 while theexisting population of the city was170.000. The master plan was definingthe major traffic arteries, the generaltypes of land-use for each “zone” of thecity and specific types of land-usewithin each “zone”, decided uponpopulation densities and the intensity ofdevelopment (p. 109). The urban areawas organized around a single center -to be reconstructed on the old city. Aring road with a green belt defined thelimits of the city. Alexandra Yerolymposnotes, at this point, an interestingfeature of the plan: Although itdesignates land-uses such as “workers’housing”, “middle and high income-group housing” –which is typical of the“zoning” understanding of the Frenchurbanism of the period- orneighborhood centers, industry etc., itdoes not impose “zoning regulations”.According to the author, these were“expected to result from the fixed landvalues, the subdivision of the land andthe proposed building systems”.

In the replanning of the central city, theplanning commission studied theancient grid system of the historical cityand decided on keeping its essentialelements. The three main streets lyingparallel to the sea, including the RomanVia Egnatia, were integrated in the plan.A number of perpendicular main streetsintersected these in right angle. The onewhich lies at the center wasdistinguished from the others with itsdesign and the administrative usesgathered around it. Conceived as agreen axis, which crosses the city fromnorth to south, the “Boulevard Civic”was an invention of the planning team.While the plan referred to the ancientpast of Thessaloniki by incorporatingthe Roman grid and Roman structures,it was also characterized by the diagonalaxes -typical of the French urbanism ofthe period- integrated with the grid.

Outside the historic city, the planningteam proposed residentialdevelopments in the form of gardensuburbs. These were conceived as“workers’ housing” on the east and“housing for middle and higher incomegroups” on the west. The latter wereseparated from the central city with alarge green area reserved for the futureuniversity. It is interesting to note thatthe old neighborhood on the north –the


(33) The author has a comprehensive book onthe history of urbanism of Thessaloniki.Alexandra Yerolympos (1995) TheReplanning of Thessaloniki after the Fire of1917, University Studio Press, First edition,Thessaloniki, (2nd edition).

Vardaris quarter spared from the fire of1917- was to be conserved andincorporated into the organic gardensuburb layout of the new residentialdistrict proposed by Hébrard, asrepresenting the “Byzantine style”.

Alexandra Yerolympos dwellsparticularly on the model of financingand the implementation process of theplan. The model adopted by the Greekgovernment for financing thereconstruction of the city is certainly oneof the most significant aspects of thewhole process. The aforementionedgoals that the Liberal government putforward at the very beginning seem tohave determined the course of actions inthe reconstruction of Thessaloniki. Thepreexisting landownership pattern ofthe old city was ignored on purpose inthe planning. The author sees the reasonof this in the determination of thepolitical authority to dissolve thepreexisting traditional communityrelations by transforming the patterns ofspatial occupation. This was realizedthrough the foundation of the PropertyOwners’ Association that aimed atgathering all the properties under thecontrol of a single authority by bringingthe landowners together as shareholderson the basis of the fixed value of eachproperty. The new building plotsdefined by the plan, was to be sold offby open tender. The Association wasfounded by law in 1918. Although at thebeginning, the transfer of these shareswas prohibited to prevent monopoliesto form, later it was allowed in order toovercome the resistance of certaincommunities –as in the case of theinfluential Jewish community whoperceived the whole operation as athreat for their presence in the city. Suchadjustment in the legislation allowedthe authorities to lead the operationsmore effectively. Investors, not onlyfrom Thessaloniki but from all overGreece and the world were interested inthe operation, and contributed to thereconstruction of the city. The operationbrought an important capital flow toThessaloniki. However, many of the oldlandowners who did not have thecapacity to afford the increasing pricesin the central city opted for selling theirshares. The preexisting propertyrelations were completely changed andthe old community relations weredissolved. The social topography of theurban space was completely

reorganized according to a new socialstratification based on economic criteria.

Although the central city wasreconstructed at a significant speed, themaster plan of Hébrard could not berealized in its integrity. However, theauthor asserts that the mode of spaceproduction introduced in Thessalonikihas become widespread in theurbanization of Greek cities.

It is interesting to note here that asimilar model of financing thereconstruction was applied in thereconstruction of Ýzmir in 1930s (44).After Thessaloniki, Ýzmir was destroyedby a devastating fire in 1922, at anothercritical moment in the political historyof the region, i.e. the end of the Greco-Turkish War. The municipality of Ýzmiraddressed also to French urbanistsHenri Prost, René and Raymond Dangerfor the preparation of a master plan (55).It is not impossible to think that the“success” of the model put intoimplementation in Thessaloniki,inspired the municipal authority inÝzmir to overcome the financialproblems it faced in the realization ofthe plan. With the exchange ofpopulation between Turkey and Greeceafter the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, animportant number of populationamongst which influential peopleoriginated from Thessaloniki weresettled in Ýzmir. They were presentduring the operations in Thessalonikiand probably played a significant role inthe transfer of the model to Ýzmir a fewyears later.

Alexandra Yerolympos’ comprehensivework on the “Urban Transformations inthe Balkans” in the nineteenth and earlytwentieth century points out theimportance of comparative studies inunderstanding parallel and divergingprocesses that took place in the past inthe geography that once occupied by theOttoman Empire. The history of theNation-States which were founded onits heritage, also display similarideological positions which outlinedtheir policies as well as similartrajectories in their struggle formodernization and social progress.

FF.. CCâânnââ BBÝÝLLSSEELL

Middle East Technical University,Ankara


(44) On this issue, see Erkan Serçe (1998)Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Ýzmir’deBelediye (1868-1945), Dokuz Eylül Yayýnlarý,Ýzmir, and F. Cânâ Bilsel, “Une ville renaitdes cendres: la création de Smyrne larépublicaine”, in Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis(ed.), Smyrne 1830-1930 : De la fortune àl’oubli, Editions Autrement, Paris (to bepublished in January 2006).

(55) F. Cânâ Bilsel (1997) “Ideology andurbanism during the early republican period:two master plans for Ýzmir and scenarios ofmodernization”, METU Journal of Faculty ofArchitecture, vol. 16, 1996, n. 1-2; 13-30.

Gülru Necipoðlu in her latest bookfocuses on Sinan. It is the product of adecade’s work and provides a freshperspective to a historic figure and hisworks, that have been overexploited inarchitectural historiography. It ispossible to evaluate Necipoðlu’s workin various ways but in this review, Iwould like to dwell on interpretation ofSinan as a historical figure.

Both in national and internationalscales, studies on Sinan generally referto his unique, near-modern architecturalcreativity which challenges his culturalcontext. In historiography of worldarchitecture, it is easier to write amonograph on Sinan than include himin generic chronological analyses (11).Sinan as a subject is appealing to alimited group of audience who arespecifically interested in architecturalproducts of non-Western cultures.Except for Spiro Kostof’s influentialtextbook A History of Architecture:Settings and Rituals, it is hard to find aworld-scale analysis of architecturalhistory that undertakes Sinan’sbuildings elaborately within cross-cultural comparisons (22). In the nationalscale, it is not an exaggeration to saythat historiography of Sinan continuesto be in a sacrosanct mode; Sinan, beingthe ‘Grand Architect’, is either thefavorite theme of memorials held everyyear or he is an exceptional premodernhistorical problematic through whomone should be cautious not to makeuniversal assumptions about Ottomanarchitecture (33). In either case, Sinan isan autonomous genius who uses hiscreativity with freewill in his works; heis rational and experimental in themodem sense (44). The stability of hisstructures, his architectural forms inwhich the exterior reflects the interior,the architectonics of his buildings notbeing over-burdened by ornamentation,are among sufficient reasons that makehim the ahistorical symbol of modernityof a nation that has suffered a great dealabout modernization.

Necipoðlu grounds the theoreticalconcern of her book on the basis of acritique of these general assumptions.She challenges both marginalization ofSinan’s architecture by monolithic-

Orientalist attitude towards Islamicarchitecture, and the reduction of Sinanhimself into a symbol in the nationaldiscourse which separates him from hiscultural context. Moreover, she arguesthat a linear-chronological historymodel that mainly relies on Sinan’sfunerary mosque complexes in andaround Ýstanbul is a prevalent way ofdisconnecting the architect from hiscontext. These evaluations reiteratestylistic debates based on form, andthus create a secular narrative ofarchitectural history in which buildingsare seen as ends in themselves ratherthan the outcomes of culturalproduction (p.15).

Necipoðlu in her book takes on a newlook to Sinan’s architectural style byfavoring cultural significance ofarchitecture. She maintains that style isnot a matter of chronology in Sinan’scase but a matter of location andpatron’s intentions. Thus, she rendersarchitectural production not as aconceptualization process of theautonomous architect but as a culturalproduction shaped by contextualparameters such as institutional,political, social, economic, cultural andaesthetic practices. Decorum is theconceptual key in Necipoðlu’s approachthat elaborates Sinan’s religiousmonuments as different representationsof a standardized vocabulary ofrepetitive canonical forms expressingthe status of their patrons. However, shefurther argues that the concept ofdecorum is not a fixed straightjacketserving to form another monolithicreading of Ottoman architecture. On thecontrary, it is subject to changes incircumstances revealing contingenciesand different self-expressions (pp. 20-21).

Therefore, Necipoðlu in her re-interpretation of Sinan unveils apanorama of Ottoman architecturalproduction through the example offunerary mosque complexes that servedas the legitimate symbol of OttomanSultans’ and elites’ power. In thispanorama, architect Sinan is undertakenboth as an individual and as aninstitution through the context of theCorps of Royal Architects (Hassa


GÜLRU NECÝPOÐLU

TTHHEE AAGGEE OOFF SSÝÝNNAANN:: AARRCCHHIITTEECCTTUURRAALL CCUULLTTUURREE IINN TTHHEE OOTTTTOOMMAANN EEMMPPIIRREE

GGÜÜLLRRUU NNEECCÝÝPPOOÐÐLLUUTTHHEE AAGGEE OOFF SSÝÝNNAANN:: AARRCCHHIITTEECCTTUURRAALLCCUULLTTUURREE IINN TTHHEE OOTTTTOOMMAANN EEMMPPIIRREE

((LLoonnddoonn,, RReeaakkttiioonn BBooookkss,, 22000055)) AArrcchhiitteeccttuurraall ddrraawwiinnggss aanndd pphhoottooggrraapphhss ooffSSiinnaann wwoorrkkss bbyy AArrbbeenn NN.. AArraappii aanndd RReehhaaGGüünnaayy,, iilllluussttrraatteedd,, 559922 pp..

IISSBBNN 11--8866118899--224444--66

11.. As example, see Godfrey Goodwin (1993)Sinan: Ottoman Architecture and Its ValuesToday, Saqi Books, London.

22.. Spiro Kostof (1995) A History ofArchitecture: Settings and Rituals, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

33.. For a critique of Sinan historiography inTurkey see Uður Tanyeli (2005) KlasikOsmanlý Dünyasýnda Deðiþim, Yenilik ve“Eskilik” Üretimi: Bir Grup Sinan TürbesiÜzerinden Okuma, in Afife Batur’aArmaðan: Mimarlýk ve Sanat Tarihi Yazýlarý,ed. Mazlum, Aðýr, and Cephanecigil (2005)Literatür Yayýncýlýk, Ýstanbul; 25.

44.. Kuban’s work is exemplary of this kind ofapproach. Doðan Kuban (1997) The Style ofSinan’s Domed Structures, Muqarnas: AnAnnual on Islamic Art and Architecture IV;)72-97; Doðan Kuban (1997) Sinan’ýn Sanatýve Selimiye (Sinan’s Art and Selimiye) TarihVakfý Yurt Yayýnlarý, Ýstanbul.

Mimarlar Ocaðý). Construction industryand processes, the duties of the chiefimperial architect as a designer and abuilder, cost estimations, changingintentions and passions of the patronsare all represented within a historicalnarrative. The aesthetic tendencies ofthe age are given as a natural part of thelarger socio-cultural expectancies. Inaddition to prominent examples ofmosques in and around Ýstanbul inwhich Sinan’s personal interventions areexplicit, Necipoðlu explores smallerprojects in remote parts of the Empire indetail in relation to their patrons.

Apart from the lively historicalnarrative of Ottoman architectural

culture condensed above, Necipoðlu’sinnovative approach to previouslypublished and unpublished historicalevidence deserves particular attention inorder to highlight her re-interpretationof Sinan. To illustrate, in her reading ofSinan as an individual, she gives acentral role to Sinan’s biographiespenned by Sai Mustafa Çelebi. Rangingfrom several drafts as well as fivedifferent versions, autobiographicalmemoirs were commissioned by Sinanhimself to his poet-painter friend SaiMustafa Çelebi in the late sixteenth-century. Different versions of the textshave different names such as Tuhfetü’l-Mi’marin (The Choice Gift of theArchitects), Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye(Biographical Memoir of Buildings) andTezkiretü’l-Bünyan (BiographicalMemoir of Construction)(p. 127).Necipoðlu argues that despite Sinan’sassertive voice in the texts and hisaspiration for global fame, his self-description is confined to a laconicoverview of his career through a list ofpromotions without disclosing much atall about his personality. Nevertheless,she accentuates the uniqueness of thesetexts in Islamic architecture and theirpotential for evaluating Sinan’s self-image. Despite the lack of architecturaltreatises written by Sinan, Necipoðluargues that building lists at the end ofeach of the four memoirs further markthe architect’s anxiety to assertauthorship over his buildings whichwould otherwise remain anonymous(pp. 128, 135).

In contrast with the mainstreamapproach that sees these biographicaltexts as average examples of OttomanCourt Literature enmeshed with poeticclichés that should be perceived withcaution in a historical analysis,Necipoðlu forces the barriers ofinterpretation (55). Furthermore, sheattracts attention to their similarity ofintention and objective with theRenaissance vita genre written forItalian artists and architects. Shemaintains that the expression ‘divine’(divino) used by Manetti forBrunelleschi and by Condivi forMichelangelo is not much different fromSai’s expressions for Sinan such as‘divine maestro’ (aziz-i kardan) and‘divine architect’ (mi‘mar-ý mübarek).As his memoirs suggest, Sinan is notunlike his Renaissance contemporariesby his God-given architectural skills.


55.. See Kuban’s preface to recent criticaleditions of these texts in Turkish. SaiMustafa Çelebi (2002)Yapýlar Kitabý:Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan ve Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye(Mimar Sinan’ýn Anýlarý), ed. Hayati DeveliSamih Rifat, Arzu Karamani Pekin, KoçKültür Sanat, Ýstanbul; 7-9.

Plan and cross-section of Sinan’s tombenclosure, Ýstanbul, with a baldachin oversarcophagus on a raised prayer platform andan octagonal domed water dispenser at thecorner, p.150.

Mosque of Nurbanu Sultan, Üsküdar,interior view of the domical superstructure,p. 291.

Indeed, the common topos employed inthree distinct biographies (Sinan’s,Brunelleschi’s and Michelangelo’s) isthat of the misunderstood genius-protagonist who struggles to pursue hisprojects within a web of envious rivalsthat mostly lack skills and enoughunderstanding to cope with them(p.137). Highly speculative andpanegyric in nature, these texts work tomystify their subjects with their claimsof authorship and originality. Necipoðludoes not make such comparisons forachieving hasty conclusions orreductions regarding Sinan; she ratheruses them to express the complexity ofthe historical context she undertakes byhighlighting its uniqueness throughsimilarities and differences with othercontexts (66).

Another historical document Necipoðluemploys to interpret Sinan’s persona ishis endowment deed (waqfiyya). Apartfrom guaranteeing the future of hisbelongings and investments for thebenefit of his relatives and the society,his endowment deed is evidence ofSinan’s deep sense of piety shaped byhis sünni inclinations. For example,Sinan allocates half an asper each tothirty pious chanters of the Süleymaniye

Mosque in order to recite Ikhlas surathree times and the Fatiha once at histomb daily. The endowment deed is fullof budgets reserved for such religiousrituals and commemorations whosetime and space are specificallydetermined. Moreover, unlike theendowment deeds belonging toprevious chief architects such as AtikSinan and Acem Alisi, as a result of thesünni influence rooted in the reign ofSüleyman the Lawgiver, Sinan’sendowment deed does not include adervish convent. Another curious themementioned in the endowment deed isSinan’s civic consciousness; hecommands several fountains to be builtfor the benefit of the society and hereserves special budget for themaintenance of sidewalks forpedestrians (p.152).

By deriving from these clues, Necipoðluconvincingly interrogates the legitimacyof undertaking Sinan as themisunderstood genius of architecturalrationality in a society caught inmedieval mentality. As she showsthrough his biographies and theendowment deed, Sinan is exactly theman of his time. Moreover, fromsultans’ praiseful decrees to varioushistorical sources penned by authorsand Ottoman historians such as Eyyubi,Celâlzade Mustafa and GeliboluluMustafa Ali, we see that Sinan wasappreciated and celebrated highly in hisage and in later Ottoman periods aswell (p. 146). These evaluations onSinan’s identity and age are crucial tounderstand both the architect and hisarchitecture; because claims ofobjectivity in historiography areessentially shaped by the presumptionsand the prejudices of the contemporaryinterpreters.

To sum up, Necipoðlu’s book is repletewith re-interpretations that interrogategeneric assumptions and prejudicesregarding Sinan and his architecture asexemplified by two groups of historicalsources in this review. Besides openingnew avenues in studies of Ottomanarchitecture, it provides an enjoyablereading not only for Ottoman historiansbut also for those who are interested inOttoman culture and architecture ingeneral.

SSeelleenn BB.. MMOORRKKOOÇÇ

University of Adelaide, Australia


66.. For a detailed comparison of Sinan’sbiographies with Renaissance vita examples,see Selen Morkoç (2005) Celebration as aHistoriographic Tool: Example of ArchitectSinan, in Celebration: XXII AnnualConference of the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians Australia and New Zealand, ed.Andrew Leach and Gill Matthewson, Napier,New Zealand; 261-67.

Parade of glaziers, from Ýntizami's Sûrnâme,folder 402r, p.163.

With “Community ParticipationMethods in Design and Planning”,Henry Sanoff provides the readers witha compact extract of his work on theconceptual and practical developmentof participatory design and planning. Itis crucial to point at Sanoff’s –strategically located – first sentence inthe preface of the book: the conceptionthat “community design” is an umbrellaterm, embracing community planning,community architecture, socialarchitecture, community developmentand community participation. With thisvery first step, the author clarifies hisapproach to design and planning, whileinitiating a series of very importantlessons to those who are either new tothe field, or to those who embrace“prima donna”s as the masters of theirprofessions. His starting point is that, inany medium of decision-making aboutcommunities, including their builtenvironment, people must have a voice.This approach puts planning,architecture and other builtenvironment related professions on thesame camp (!), and focuses on the act ofmaking informed decisions based onusers’ position(s).

In other words, Sanoff argues that in acommunity, instead of the minority(almost always an “expert”) or themajority (almost always a group ofpeople that vote univocally) deciding onthe future, a consensus among differentstakeholder groups should be sought.The body of the text is really an attemptto explain this notion to the audience byfirst noting the objectives ofparticipation in decision-making, secondintroducing systematically the methodsof participation, and third clarifyinghow this can be done with examples.

The first chapter of the book takes thereaders back to 60s and 70s, andintroduces the idea of participation indecision-making with references to keyfigures such as Saul Alinsky and PaulDavidoff. The rest of this chapter, afterdiscussing the current views ofcommunity participation, dismantlesand analyzes the phases, role playersand outcomes of participatoryprocesses. In fact, the first chapter of thebook makes the tough job ofintroducing the idea of participation

from the social, cultural and behavioralperspectives look real easy: newcomersto the field will (and I have witnessed,did) benefit enormously from this step-by-step introduction. The secondchapter only complements thisintroduction with clear andstraightforward explanations ofparticipation methods. This chapter alsobrings a much-needed series ofclarifications to the field, at a timewhere the use of the terms such as“charrette”, “workshop”, and“visioning” have turned almostarbitrary, or at least “fashion” driven.This, again, is extremely advantageousnot only for newcomers, but also forthose whose minds have been blurredwith the “terminology stew” pouringmostly out of architecture schoolsaround the globe.

The last three chapters of Sanoff’s 2000output focuses on participatoryapproaches that have been implementedin the last three decades in the contextof educational facilities, housing andvarious urban environments. Thesechapters in fact demonstrate the designand implementation of participatorydecision-making instruments inarchitecture and planning, whileproviding showcases of howparticipatory processes can be initiated,sustained and successfully completed.

Being an extract of Sanoff’s work ofmore than three decades, the book canbe instrumental in introducing basicmethodological issues in environmentand behavior research, particularlyvisual research methods in planningand design. Sanoff’s book also comes inhandy in the current state of confusionabout concepts and terms, particularlyin architecture, but not sparing planning– especially with the “introduction” ofNew Urbanism. While elaborating onparticipatory approaches andparticipation methods, Sanoff showsthat participatory design is a complexprocess, one certainly exceeding thescope and content of what is usuallyreferred to as “community buildingcharrettes” by New Urbanists. The samedisplay stands almost like a fire alarmconsidering more recent uses of theterm charrette, referring to informationexchange among architects, by the


HHEENNRRYY SSAANNOOFFFFCCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY PPAARRTTIICCIIPPAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODDSSIINN DDEESSIIGGNN AANNDD PPLLAANNNNIINNGG

((NNeeww YYoorrkk:: JJoohhnn WWiilleeyy && SSoonnss,, 22000000))hhaarrddccoovveerr,, 330066 pp..

IISSBBNN 00--447711--3355554455--33

HENRY SANOFF

CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY PPAARRTTIICCIIPPAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODDSS IINN DDEESSIIGGNN AANNDD PPLLAANNNNIINNGG

architects. Obviously not much can besaid once such “charrettes” themselvesare pointed at as examples ofparticipatory design. Nevertheless, maybe this is simply fair game, in a periodwhere personal opinions presented asresearch give those conductingempirical research heart attacks…

Henry Sanoff’s proposal that theprofessional will benefit fromdeveloping solutions from “acontinuous dialogue with those whowill use his or her work (p. 12)” is not anew one, but is one that receives

considerable confrontation in designdisciplines, particularly in architecture.With its systematic introduction of theconcepts, methods and instruments ofparticipatory design, his latest bookdemonstrates that as opposed to causingan erosion, participation reinforces theprofessional’s power, as well as his/herlevel of received trust and respect.Could this be the time for us to listen?

UUmmuutt TTOOKKEERR

California Polytechnic State UniversityCA 93407, San Luis Obispo


Documents

BOOK REVIEWS METU JFA 2005/2 91jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/0258-5316/2005/cilt22/sayi_2/91-106.pdf · in the territories of the Ottoman Empire in general and in the Balkans in particular