THE EVOLUTION OF THE SPATIAL PATTERN OF İSTANBUL
İlber
ORTAYU·
The historical topography of İstanbul, pattern of distribution
of Mahalle's (neighborhoods), evolution of organization of social
activity centers and their reflections in space have recently been
subject to research. Yet either because special structural elements
and typical evolution of these in historical perspective were
evaluated in descriptive dimensions or in not-so-meaningful
contexts as "Eastern cities-Western cities", the subject did not
gain adequate clarification. ı These writers, in general assume
İstanbul as a metropolis of 1000 years and either accept it as an
Eastern city, a special case of its own, reflecting Western traces
as well ... or have studied the city as an Islamic center patterned
around nodes of "imaret" (hospice) and mosques.
In this article İstanbul wiU be treated as a structure which
maintained the same basic characteristics in spatial organization
(such as CBD, Residential District, Periphery ete.) from antiquity
to the end of 18. centuryand one which experienced important
spatial changes due to intensified foreign relations in the 19. cen­
tury and the concommitant economic structure. The evolution
* Dr.
Ortaylı teaches at
the Faeulty of Politieal Seienee of Ankara
University.
1 Robert Mayer, Konstantioııpel. Byzanz. İstanbuL. Heraurg von der Öst,
Akad. der Wissenehaften. Wien, 1943.
B. Lewis, İstanbul. Univ. of Oklahoma Press Norman 1963.
H. İnalcık, "İstanbul", Eneye. of Islam, New Edition. Leiden-Brill.
Vol. IV, pp. 224-248.
187
of spatial organization of İstanbul has therefore be and studied
under diÇ~erent chronogical categorizations.
BYZANTIUM IN ANTIQITY
Prehellenistic Byzantium, a node where naval traffic from
Black Sea and the Aegean Sea met, was an important fishing
center and commercial depot at the period. The harbour, corre­
sponding to contemporary Golden Horn and Eminönü was
~pecialized and organized after these acti vi ties. Besides commer­
cial, transportation and warehousing activities; administrative
and military functions were alsa concentrated in this area.
This active business center was located between present day
Sarayburnu and Unkapanı. Sarayburnu was the center where
Byzantine acropolis was. A temple was located in this acropolis
(Figure I, Area A).
The residential district was right behind the harbour
and the commertial area. The innermost circıe was habited by
fishermen and low income groups (Figure I, Area C). Socially b~t­
ter-off groups and merchants lived on the slopes of the acropolis.
The agora and the other administrative buildings were alsa
located in the acropolis and the high income residential area.
(Figure I, Area D).
It is n10st probable that animal trade with the Thraceans
took place in a special animal market outside the residential area
(Figure I, Area E). In this period there were also small scale
settlements in Galata and along the Bosphorus shoreline. 2
This type of a spatial pattern denotes a settlement completely
ln accordance with traditional antique cities from the point
of view of its plan and urban structure. This general structure
is not to display any basic spatial changes in later periods.
CONSTANTINAPOLIS DURING THE LATE ROMAN AND
EARLY FEUDAL AGE:
In the middle of the 4. century when Emperor Constantin
almost reestablished the city, the basic functions and their
2
188
R. Mayer, Ibid., pp. 216··217.
relevant spatial forrns reeı,ched more extensive dimensİons.
Proportional to the increasing popula tion both the business and
administrative sections of the city, along with the residential area
developed Westward. The activity centers were experiencing
qualitative rather than quantitative changes whereas functionally
separated subareas displayed spatial enlargement. Spatial
hierarchy remained unchanged.
In the area between Sarayburnu and Sultanahmet center
were located the imperial palace (Southwest of the hippodrome),
spectacular churches, administrative buildings, the Senate and
the hippodrome the construction of which was started by Sep­
timus Severus and completed in time of Constantine (Figure Tl)
The hippodrome did not only house a circus and entertainment
facilities but courthouses and some administrative buildings were
alsa located there; sentences were carried out, public discussions
and rei'erandums were held. This spatial organization remained
unchanged during the reign of Theodosius I, one of Constantine's
successors. Only the residentiaı area and the military barracks on
the Westem section of the city extended further West. Harbour
activities and related organizations extended toward inner sections
of the Golden Hom. 3
Besides the administrative center there was a second center
where harbour activities and the dependent markets and shopping
area were located (Figure II,). The main thoroughfare !Onnecting
the administrative center with the inner city (and was caIled
Divanyolu in the Ottoman era) was paved in this period. Towards
the clese of the 4. century the nearby activity centers had reached
extensive dimensions following the increase of population. SmaIl
ports along the east of Marmara like Bukaleon, Julian,
Kontoskalion, Eleuterios did not display intense activity, These
remained as secondary quays then and in the Ottoman era as
well.
Resİdential area around central administrative and business
areas extended towards the outskirts of the city (Figure II,).
:ı Die Zeit Konstaııtin des Grossen. Leipzig ı Phaidon,
p. 348.
S. Runeiman, Byzantine elvHization, Meridian Books, Cleveland. 197'J.
pp. 72-74.
J.J. Burekhardt
Verlayı
100
Each "mahalle'· was a single organic unit patterned around a
nodal church. In the Byzantine era, as in the ottoman era,
churches were nodes around which communities developed.
The Southwestern sections of the city, that is present day
Langa and Davutpaşa, housed military barracks and regiments
in the Byzantine era as in the later Ottoman period. These
districts were on the outskirts of the city, one example is the
Theodosian regiment named after Emperor Theodesius (Figure
11,).4 It is interesting to note that in the Ottoman era the Davut­
paşa barracks of the "Yeniçeri's (Ottoman soldiers) were located
in this area as pointed out by Mayer. In those sections of the
residential district close to the harbour and close to these military
barracks, fishermen and low income groups lived.
The development of Galata in this era grew out of the
intense activity of Mediterranean ıtalian cities in the levant.
The Italians used to live along the narrow streets right behind
present day Sirkeci and Unkapanı harbour facilities. 5 From
these districts which constituted the periphery of the resid~ntial
area, they later extended to Galata. In 1185 their dominant
position became subject to aggression and attacks by the
Byzantians. Venice revenged by directing the 1204 Crusade to
Constantinopolis.
At the close of the 12. century the spatial organization and
settlement patte m of İstanbul had aıready taken on the general
lines and structure which it would maintain until basic changes
took place during the 19. century.
İSTANBUL
BETWEEN THE 15. AND 18. CENTURIES:
Before the Turkish conquest of Constantinopolis, the socio­
economic and political situation of Byzantium had left its impact
on the city. Yet it is aıready known that the residential and
business districts, with the exception of common urban structures
and centers, have always carried feudal urban character since
4
tt
190
R. Mayer, Ibid.. p. 220. R. Mayer. Ibid.• p. 222. G. Vasiliev. History of Byzantine Empire. (Bizans
hil. Trans. by A.M. ManseL. Ankara. 1943.
İmparatorluğu
Tari­
1;\TZı\~'I'IIJlI
( ı\i ~a~nTI~~'n' )
j
'"
J
f
Lı sı
~\
LEGEND
~
Li...:.:J
A" Admınıstrot ıve oreo
~ B: Busıness Distrıct
·
t"tA L ore.ohıgh
~ C: Resıden
ıifl. ·1 D
ı:-;-;:;ı
~
.
.
,ncom
oreo
E: A:1imol market
D"Re~,dentıol
•
the past. It İs also known that in the 15. century the resıdentiai
district was not completely occupied.
In 1403 Clavijo of Castilia who visited the cHy on his way to
palace as an ambassador observed that the city was
full of empty lots and cultivated gardens. 6 Buandelmonte who
also visited the city in 1419 commented on the slums and scattered
condition of the city. Bertandon de la Brocquiere who arrived in
1433, relates that the city was divided into distinct cultivated
areas.
Taıuerlane's
Excluding the central bureaucratic districts and the area
the pa la ce and the business center were located, Constan­
tinopolis, both in the Byzantine and in the Ottoman eras was
widely known for its wooden buildings and empty, cultivated and
burnt down lots scattered throughout the city. After the conquest,
efforts were aimed at transforming the city into a center domi­
nating the Balkans and Anatolia and at increasing its population
since it was an important transit node between the Black Sea
and the Mediterranean. Throughout the 15. century moslem and
nonmoslou populations from Anatolia, Rumelia and Black Sea
coast were settled in the city by compulsory methods. Professor
Barkan puts the city's population at 100.000 during this period.
He adds a 1/5 to this total including the slaves, the soldiers and
the "medrese" (university) students not recorded in the "tahrir"
(ce:nsus) notebooks. On the other hand Schneider estimates a
popula tion of 60 - 70.000. 7
wJ:ıere
'1' '
Several writers relate that both in the residential districts
and in the market and harbour districts, new mosques and hos­
pices were established to create new communİties and centers.
Yet one must not forget that this activity, in essence amounted
to the rehabilitation of the Byzantine neighborhoods, markets
and facilities.
\.i
7
Clavijo. Embassy to Tamerlane (1403-1406), Trans. from Spanish, by
Guy le Strange. George Routledge and Sons, London, 1928, pp. 87-88.
Ö.L. Barkan, "Recensement dans L'Empire Ottoman",. Journal of
Economic and Social History of Orient. Vol. i. pp. 9-36.
See also İnalcık, Ibid. pp. 238-241.
Schneider. Die BeveorJ.kerung Konstantinopels im XV Jahrhundert,
Nachd. der Akad. der Wissenshaften in Göttingen, 1949, p. 49.
193
The spatial organization of the city dispİayed the following
characteristics :
Administrative and Control Area : The area which in the
Byzantine era contained the palace, the public offices, high incOlne
residences and the main temples maintained the same charac­
ter. The old palace built by Sultan Fatih (located at the present
site of the İstanbul University building in Beyazıt) was soon
deserted and moved to where Topkapı palace now stands (First
Çinili kiosk then Topkapı palace) . The Byzantine church of
Ayasofya, was converted into the most important mosque in the
city. The hippodrome stil! performed similar functions as it had
under the Byzantians. The horse market was located there. Most
of the administrators', bureaucratic lords' and merchants'
mansions were located in this area. We must point out that there
was no institutionalized, ccntinuous government office except
the palace, the "sadrazamlık" (sublime port) and "şeyhülislam"
(religious leader) until the beginning of the 19. century. Even
the "kadı" of İstanbul who performed duties of a governor and
supreme judge use d his own residence as an office. The "yeniçeri
ağası", commander of the "kapıkulu" soldiers,
worked in the
Ağakapısı next to Süleymaniye mosque, an area the dominant
character of which was commercial rather than administrative.
He was responsible for the security of the city, he performed po­
lice functions.
:;1)
b) Harbour Area and the Markets: Their function alsa
remained the same. Several mosques, hospices and shops were
established in these areas and old facilities were repaired in order
to restore economic functions (like Mahmut Paşa mosque, Mısır
çarşısı built in alater period, Büyük Bedesten or the covered
bazaar). This area extended from the present harbour to present
day Bayazıt center. Important "medrese"s and "inıaret"s of the
city were located in the residential district and in this transition
area (Figure III).
In the 15. century haroour activities increased in intensity
and extended towards inner Golden Horn. The harbour became
specialized in unloading functions. Yemiş pazarı, Unltapanı, Yağ­
kapanı, Odun iskelesi, Balat were quays where similar goods were
unloaded. Present day Tahtakale was situated in the center of
194
the harbour, therefore activities like warehousing and shopping
were concentrated here. Besides we aIready know that Latin
colonists lived in this area in the Byzantine period and later on
the Venetian merchants occupied the area. In the 15. century
the Venetian Bailo lived here and this district was referred to as
"Arslanlı
Ev Mahallesi" or "Venedik Lonca Mahallesi" in the
....
.,
"tahrir" notebooks. 8
,
Present day Eminönü displayed the same character in the 15.
century. Only af ter the conquest, the Venetians and the Latin
merchants moved to Galata. Eminönü performed central harbour
function. Eremya Çelebi mentions that ships coming from Egypt
and distant islands anchored here before the customs for contro1. 9
Ships arriving from all harbours were loaded and unloaded here.
This was why several warehouses and the Mısır Çarşısı where
goods were displayed for sale, were located nearby.
Goods !ike honey, oil, flour and other foodstuff shipped from
the erimea, the Danube, and the Black Sea harbours were
unloaded in Golden Horn quays known as Unkapanı, Yağkapanı,
Balkapanı. The "emin"s who controlled these goods were found
at the quays and the tradesmen who dealt in storing and process­
ing the incoming foodstuff worked nearby. The "Pencik emini"
who supervised slave trade was at Eminönü. The fish market was
located between Eminönü and Unkapanı. It is known that fish
markets were specialized and differentiated specially from cen­
tral markets even in the antique cities like Priene and Miletos.
The present day fish market was located in the same spot, West
of Mısır çarşısı until very recently. West of the fish market,
towards inner circles of the Golden Horn the vegetable market,
wood market and the prison were located. The spatial arrange­
ment along the Golden Horn was the same during the Byzantine
era. Beyond. Unkapanı was the place where wheat and flour stocks
of the city, shipped from Dobruca and other Black Sea ports
~ Barkan-Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıflan Defteri.
İstanbul, Fetih
1970, p. 570.
R. Janin, CODstantinopel Byzantine, Paris,Inst. Françaises
Byzantine, 1950. pp. 235-244. See alsa İnalcık, Ibid., p. 228. 1) Eremya Çelebi
Kömürciyan, 17. Asırda. İstanbul. Trans.
Andreasyan, tÜ. Ed. Fak. Yayını,. no: 506, İstanbul. 1952, p.
Cemiyeti
Yayınlan, İstanbuL,
196
d'Etudes by H.D.
15.
were unloaded and where breadmarker's activities were conceİı­
trated. Due to intensive volume of. business transacted,; a"naip"
(acting kadı) of the İstanbul "kadı" livedhere.
These spatial forms displaying the traditioru;ıl urban charac­
ter of İstanbul were unchanged. Wc explçıin the development in
the control and business districts by the growth in the natural
hinterland of the city.
c) Residential District: The residential district was ..next
to the business area and displayed typical transitional characteris­
tics (bachelar rooms and "hans"). This was the area where most
of İstanbul's population lived and where m.ost neighborhoods were
formed. After the conquest, following the example of Constanti,..
nopolis, the city was divided into 13 "nahiye"s. These contained
219 "mahalle"s.lO The new "mahalle"s naturally developed around
old churches, in place of former settlement units.. At first, set­
tlement grew around mosques transformed .from churehes. Later
on new neighborhoods were formed as wel1. At the early stages,
the "mahalle" was called after the "mesçid" (Iocal mosque) or
the mosque. l1
The em phasi s on repopulation of the city reduced to rtıins
economically and demographically, with moslem and nonmoslem
groups was pointed out earlier. Yet this repopulation process did
not have an important deviating impact on the typical settlement
pattern of the traditional city. In 1455 moslem communities fro;rn
Kocaeli, Saruhan, Aydın, Balıkesir were brought in by cQmpulsory
measures. The same year the first Jewish community .was· settled
between Bahçekapı-EıninönÜ. Mehmet the Conqueror ordered
Annenians to settle in Sulumanastır and Samatya. He appointed
Gennadies as Orthodox Greek Patriarch in 1454. Later in 1461,
he appointed an Armenian patriarch and a chief rabbi. In 1459,
Armenians and Greeks were brought in from Foça, .Greeks came
in frOln Morla, Taşoz (Tasho) and Limni in 1460 and from
Trabzon in 1461. (an example to impact of groVling hinterland,
Trabzon was taken by the Turks after İstanbul). Between 1468-74
10 H. İnalcık, lbid., p. 229.
11 t.R. Ayverdi, Fatih
Devrinde İstanbul Mahalleleri, Ankara, 1958, p~.
8-68. and pp. 70-80.
197
.Karaman Greeks were deported from Central AnatoHa to environs
·of Topkapı and Armenians deported from Karaman, Larende, Ak­
sarayand Ereğli were settled in Sulumanastır and Samatya. In
1475 from Kefe, Latins, Armenians and Greeks were deported.
In 16. century this colonization movement slowly came to an end
because urban population had exceeded the expected limits.
POPULATION ACCORDING TO 1477 CENSUS (Hicri 882) 12
No. of Households
Moslem
Greek
Jewish
Armenian
Kefians (Latin and Karaim)
Karaman Greeks and Armenians
Gypsies
TOTAL 8951
3151
1647
372
267
384
31
14.803
%
60
21.5
11
2.6
2
2.7
0.2
100.0 Spatial differentiation in the traditional city did not reflect
a categorization based on income and social status but one based
on ethnic and racial differences. The same pattern is observable
in İstanbuL. In the Ottoman "mahalle" the rich and the paor
were located side by side. The "mahalle" in fact was a micro
model of the spatial arrangement in the city. In the center there
was the mosque, the schooı and the public bath. It was a cam­
İllunity of families, bachelars were not welcome. Therefore bache­
lor workers stayed in bachelor "hans" in the business district.
Present day Aksaray, Laleli, Şehzadebaşı, Süleymaniye, Vefa,
Zeyrek, Çarşamba, Fatih, Atikali constituted the large area where
moslem population lived. Çarşamba was known as the "ulema"
(intellectuals) district because it was near to Süleymaniye and
Fatih "medreses". Yet since as in all feudal towns, in İstanbul
İnalcık .. Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi: D 9529, from Eneye. of Islam, p. 238.
This source is the best one for settıement and population it this era
1.
12 198
toa the determinants of spatial differentiation were religious and
ethnic groupings rather than social status, one ·cannot generalize
cat'2gorization3 as in the ease of Çarşamba.
It was nıentioned that scattered throughout the city there
were empty, unsettled or burnt down lots. The vegetable yards
in and out cf the walls met some of the need for vegetables in
the city. In the 17. century Bayrampaşa brook, Langa vegetable
yards and Yenibahçe were such areas. 13 The same functioh is
stilI observable in Çukurboston and Langa today.
On differEnt days of the week open markets were held in
residen tial q uarters on predetermined areas. Designa tion of a
plac€ fcran epen market or change of location depended on
p:.:rmit to be issued by the palace to the "kadı" of İstanbuL.
Excı.ll1ples to typical weekly üpen markets are Çarşamba, Perşem­
be, Aksaray, Fatih, Vefa, Balat, Yenibahçe and Salı markets.
ThEre were three different type of holl.szs: one story houses
(süfli), two ~tory houses (ulvi), and spatious houses (mükellef).
Each typ~ was written down as a separate household on tax
payrolls and ~opulation censuses. Schweig"ger in 16. century
classifies these houses as cheap and bad quality structures. 14
The betterment of quality came later in 18. century. The streets
with the excEption of prc . essional thoroughfares were narrowand
winding as in the Byzan tine era. There was no system of streets
cutting the center radially. This system is to be seen even in
Europs in later ages, Facilities as waterways, fountains, baths and
Ioeal ll1os:jues were preserved and repaired by the inhabitants of
the "mahalle".
The barracks and military installations were lo ca ted at the
p8ri phery of the residen tial district towards the walls .as in the
old Constantinopolis (Eg. Davutpaşa barracks). The number of
saldiers living in the city was 12.800 in 1475 and 24.146 in 1521. 1 ;;
Although in 1669 their number reached 100.000, by then soldiers
13
H
1;;
E. Oberhummer, Constantinopolis, Pauly and Wissova, Metzıerscher
Verlag, Stntgart, 1899.
S. Schweigger, Eine Reysbeschreibung Nach Constantinople, Akod.
Druck Graz-Austria. 1964, pp. 105-106.
Ö.L. Barkun, "Osmanlı Bütçeleri", İktisat Fakültesi Mecınuası, C. xV,
1953-54, Dı1. :?38-329.
199
were engaged in other occupational activities as well. In short,
by the second half of the 16. century we observe that the popu­
la tion had reached problema tic dimensions.
d) Peripherial Districts of Ethnic Groups : The ethnic groups
were settled in the peripherial areas overlooking the Marmara Sea
and the Golden Hom. The situation was similar in Galata. As
in each traditional city, in İstanbul too the areas where these
groups were allowed to live were bounded and segregated. In such
areas activities like church bUilding, repair, exten=ion of infra­
structure could be realized only by special official permit. The
limited dimensions of land set aside for these groups plus restric­
tions imposed on building and betterment activities resulted in
dangeriously high densities, disorderly urban services and lack
of proper sanitation.
Several ethnic groups living in the city were formally divided
into si.x subgroups: Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Galata Franks,
Karaims, Galata Greeks. 16 Galata Franks and Galata Greeks did
not live in the walled city. Greek, Armenian and the Jewish com­
munities were formally recognized by the State.
In 15. century Roman Catholics deported from Crimea-Kefe
were settled around St. Nicholas and St. Mary churches in
Edirnekapı. Later on when the main processional thoroughfare
passed through this area, the moslem population increased. The
churches in this area were converted into mosques (like Kariye
mosque, Mihriban Sultan mosque, Kefeli mosque) and the Catho­
lics were moved to Galata. AIready in 16. century the minorities'
had taken their places in the typcial spatial image of İstanbul
with their "mahalle"s and institutions. They were at the periphery
as in aLL traditional cities.
If we move around the city from East to West: at Bahçeka­
the Italians and the Venetian Baila lived. Later on they moved
to Galata. After the conquest of Kefe, the Karaim community
was settled here. They too moved to Galata in 16. century. The
Jews were settled around present day Eminönü. In the 17. century
fallowing a fire, settlement here was forbidden. Since Valide Sul­
pı
16
200
H. İnalcık, Ibid., pp. 240-241.
tan Turhan had" a mosque built here, the Jewish
moved to Balat.
:~community
The Greeks li ved in Fener district next to Unkapanl. Greek
Patriarchs who after the conquest chose Panunakaristos church
ar their seat, in 16. century settled in Fener district on the Golden
Horn. Rich as well as poor Greek families lived in Fener in 17.
century. Eremya Çelebi notes that 11 noble Greek families
lived in Fener in the 17. century. H Their stone' bıiildings reflecting
Renaissance taste were erected side by side wooden apartment
houses in slum condition where the poor lived. These wooden
highrise buildings are slum taday as well. In Balat these buildings
were called "yahudhane". In Fener there were alsa mansions
Eflak-Buğdan Voyvodas kept in İstanbuL. This situation once
again displays the fact that spatial distribution in minority dis­
tricts was alsa not based on income and status. The rich and
poar families of the same ethnic group lived side by side in space.
West of Fener there was Balat which basically was a Jewish
settlement, yet Greeks alsa lived there. Eremya Çelebi notes that
there was an Arnıenian church here called Hıreşdegabet and there
were quite a few Armenian households settled in the district. 18
Rabbi Isaac Sarfaty had called Eskenazi Jews from Europe to
escape pressures upon them. 19 Yet İstanbul Jews were basical1y
Safardict. Avram Galanti notes that İstanbul Jews were organized
in communities and settled as such (!ike Balat community, Has­
köy community). Besides Balat, Jews were alsa settled in Has­
köy on the other shore. Galanti comments that Hasköy wes the
most dense settlement. 2Q In 16. century Jewish community was
about 36.000. In 1477 there were 1674 households. In 1535 when
a numerous immigrant group joined them, the number rose to
8070 households and in 1690 to 8236 households. In 16. century
Turkey, along with Poland became one of the major immigrant
receiving areas for Jews. By then the increasing community was
living in inner walls towards Eyüp, along with densely settled
17
18
10
::0
Eremya Çelebi Kömürcİyan, Ibid., p. 16. Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan,lbid., p. 2ı. H.H. Graetz.Gersh. and Juden. V. VIII, p. 214. A. Galanti. Histoire des. Juifs d'İstanbul. İstanbul Hüsn-ü Tab Ma'­
baası, Vol. I-II, 1941, pp. 71-99-1Oı. A. Galanti, Ibid., pp. 25-99-101. 201
Balat and Eğrikapı. Today there is still a Jewish cemetery and
a temple in Eğrikapı.
In Sulukule, below the walls in Western parts of the city,
Gypsies, and Armenians lived. The Karaman Greeks who spoke
and worshipped in Turkish were settled between NarIıkapı and
Yedikule. Sulumanastır was occupied by Armenians.
The next district Samatya, was the place where Armenians
lived. The Surp Kevork church in this area used to be the
Armenian Patriarchy. Eremya Çelebi notes that there were more
than 1000 Armenian families living in Samatya.!!1 In 1641 when
the Armenian population extended Eastward along the Marmara
coast and increa~·ed in numbers, the Patriarch moved to Kumka­
pı. Thus Kumkapı, Yenikapı and Samatya became
settlements
where Armeuians were concentrated. Few Armenian communities
were also settled in Topkapı. After the conquest the Armenian
immigrants were deported in large numbers, probably to balance
the increased number of Greek inhabitants and following the
Greek Patriarch an Armenian Patriarch was appointed. In 19.
century (year 1833) the Armznian population was 48.099.
The markets in the minority districts were shared by Greek,
Armenian and Jewish tradesmen. They were also mixed with
Turks in other markets throughout the town and were members
of guilds.
e) Settlements Outside the Walls: Outside the walls there
were tanneries, vegeta ble gardens and cemeteries. Kazlıçeşme was
the district where dominant traditional activity was tanning. Tan­
neriee were located outside the walls for sanitary reasons. Subur­
ban settlenıents like Eyüp were not suburbs in the real sense.
Law income groups, poor fishermen, vegetable growers lived here.
As we shil-l! note later on, when immigration to the city increased
aftrr the ı 7. century, districts like Kasımpaşa and Eyüp turned
into ·'gec.ekondu" areas. This immigration then was caused by
problems of land and pressures on rural population.2~ Other
trades perfarıned outside tb e walls were pottery making and
21
:!2
202
Eremya Çelebi Kömürcİyan. Ibid., pp. 16-17. H. İnalcık, Ibid., p. 233. g'lassware manufacturing. These activIties were located in Ayyan­
and Eyüp.
~.ray
Galata, located outside the walls performed similar functions)
-and its spatial pattern resembled that of the traditional city.
trhis was the area where foreign relations of the city were intense.
Compared to the city in the walls, Galata had developed as an
intercontinental base for trade and colonization; therefüre al­
though it did not differ in activities performed, it definitely housed
a population of a different composition. In 19. century the econom­
ic activities and spatial organization of Galata were to become
subject to important changes. Until the 19. century the smaIl
settlements along the Bosphorus also displayed similar structureS
and it was not possible to obseı've urban integration among them.
The Genoese in Galata had obtained important rights in 1254,
during the reign of the Paleologs. Until them the part of the
town known as the "Büyük Hendek Caddesi" was fortified by
walls. After 1267 settlements jumped out of the township. The
peripherial settlements of Galata reached to Cihangir, FındıkIı
and Salıpazarı. At the end of 15. centuryand beginning of 16. cen­
tury moslem immigrants from Spain (the Moricos) were settled
around Arap mosque. Thus a minor İslamic community was formed
at the periphery of the township around Arap mosque. In 16.
century the main occupants of Galata were the moslems (535
households), the Greeks (592 households), Europeans (332
households) and Armenians (62 households) .23
The Pera, one subdistrict of Galata, was where the foreigners
and nonmuslims were concentrated even from the earlier timeı:ı.
The churches and "vakf"s (pious foundations) were established
here. In the center of Galata there was a market of sail makers
:ınd "yemeni" (shoe) rrıakers. Harbour activities extended towards
lnner Golden Horn. The candIe makers were located on the o'~ter
districts towards the Bosphorus due to sanitary reasons. The
docks and the Azepler "mahallesi" were where the navy was
located. There lived about 3000 naval soldiers and personnel in
Galata. 24 Since both Azepler and Kasımpaşa were considered as
:ı~
24
H. İnalcık, Ibid., p. 239. Ö.L. Barkan, Ibid., P. 313. 203
naval districts. "Kaptan Paşa" (the
for the security of these areas.
admiral) was responsible
Hasköy was.where, Eskenazi .and Saphardik Jews were settıed
along with Romanyots and asmaller group of Gypsies. 25 We also
see the Karait community here. The Karaits lived in İstanbul and
Anatolia ever since the Byzantine era. 26 In 15. century they had
extended To Bahçekapı as welL. (Ftgure 4).
Inner circles of the Golden Horn and environs of Kağıthane
were covered by vegetable and fruit gardens and orchards. In 18.
century they were transformed to resort and pienie areas.
The small settıements on both sides of the Bosphorus were
economically and socially intravert communities. Even from earlier
times settlements like Kuruçe~me, Ortaköyand Kuzguncuk on
the AnatoHan coast either completely or at "mahalle" level were
senkd by different religious and ethnic groups. Greek fishermen
lived in Yeniköyand Tarabya villages until 18. century. Beşiktaş,
nearer to the center of the city, was the district where Greek,
Jewish and Armenian minority groups Hved in communities.
Üsküdar, on the AnatoHan shore, remained as an unintegrated
satellite until the 18. century. The population living here owned
houses around certain business centers. The importance of Üskü­
dar where, in generaı, tradesmen, small farmers and local ad­
ministrators lived was due to the fact that it was a transit point
fcır the traffie between İstanbul and Anatolia. With rural exodus
and n1İgration to İstanbul, Üsküdar became subject to an incoming
~tream of unmarried, unemployed and unskilled workers. Later
on when the incoming stream incıuded families as well, the first
"gecekondus" appeared in Üsküdar. The process of integration
of Üsküdar to the city in the 19. century included Kadıköy's
integration as, welL. The first signs of change in the traditionaı
settıement pattern of the distriet appeared in 18. century. At the
period although there were no basic changes in the economic
structure of the country, the increasing surplus in the hands .tf
the lord bureaucrats was channelled into conspicious consumption.
On the other hand, the consumption pattern of the shipowner
2;)
A. Galanti, Ibid, p. 54. 26
Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium. New York, 1959, p. 140. 204
~vKas,mPash
JOPKHANE
TOPknlıne Dumu
BOSPHORu,:>
LEGEND
ezzı 8u~.()ess and harbour dıstrıct
Rc~,(
ent.al area
Per . ıer y
o
100
200
300
400m
Fener Greeks who controlled Black Sea transport and of the
foreign delegations in the 18. century created a new life style in
İstanbuL. One new aspect of life was suburbanization, although
not in the real sense of the word. The vegetable gardens in Kağıt­
hane where transforrned into "kasr"s (villas) and week-end recre­
ation places. One af ter another, yillas, kiosks, gardens were
constructed in the isola ted villages of the Bosphorus. Yeniköyand
Tarabya which were once poor fishing villages became resort
areas for rich Greek shipowners (these shipowners had few ships
and transported oranges, wood and wheat between Danube, Black
Sea and erimea harbours) who built villas there.
These villages became real suburbs in the 19. century. Other
Bosphorus locations for new resort areas were Kuzguncuk, Beyler­
beyi, Ortaköyand Kandilli. The ethnic composition in these vil­
lages became more complex. In summary, although İstanbul did
not have real ~.uburbs in the 18. century, we observe the appearance
of seasonal recreation and resort areas. This development can be
termed as pseudo-suburbanization.
On the other hand, a paper mill and an engineering school
were built in Kağıthane along with modern military barracks
outside the city walls (Selimiye). These are the first signs of
suburbanization. The important process in the 18. century is th?,
incoming multitudes of unmarried workers and rural families
from Anatolia. 27 This caused appearance of extensive slums where
the unmarried workers lived in the business district. "Gecekondus"
started in Eyüp, Kasımpa~a and Ü sküdar. These districts were
occupied by unskilled, partly unemployed crowds. Thus the first
"gecekondus" appeared in the peripherial districts of the city.
The changes in space, the appearance of real suburbs, "gecekon­
dus" and slums is a process dependent on the modernization in
19. century. 18. century must be evaluated as a preparatory
period for 19. century.
MODERNIZATION OF İSTANBUL IN 19. CENTURY:
In world history, 19. century, compared to previous eras
is the period when the rate of structural transformation increaseci
?7
H. İnalcık, Ibid., p. 239.
M. Aktepe, Tarih Dergisi, Vol. V, No. 13, pp. 1-30.
206
highly. This process of chang'e had its impact on İstanbul by then
the ınetropolis of the Balkanian peninsula and the Middle East.
İstanbul, although one of the cultural and economic centers oT:
the world for the past thousand years, concommitant to the slow
rate of change in the world had not changed much structurally.
Now its hinterland had to adapt its pace to İstanbuL. it is po~·
sible to cbserve this rapid change in the institutions of the city,
in its increasing population, increasing urban area and most
important of all, the spatial organization.
The following new dimensions appeared in the spatial struc­
ture : a) The L=~inning of "gecekondu" neighborhoods, b) forma­
tion of slums, c) reflection of class structure to space, d) changes
in and extension of the CBD, e) definition of the exact limits of
the transition area, f) Formation of an organic integration of
several districts, segregated thus far with the main city. Modern­
ization of intracity transp0rtation system contributed to this
process greatly.:2X Despite all these new dimensions, 19 century
İstanbul should not be compared with its contemporary European
metropolises.
First of all, the city experienced a population increase as it
had never housed before. Population of 359.000 in the first census
in 1829 reached up to 700.000 in 1918.'W This increase was especially
due to mass immigration of families from Rumelian provinces
compared to immigration of unmarried workers, the unemploye1
and fewer number of families in 16., 17., 18., centuries.
On the other hand, İstanbul in the 19. century became a ser­
vice area for Atlantic industrial production and trade, as Beirut,
İzmir, Salonica and Pireus were. These cities besides serving as
commercial ports alsa bBcame centers where warehouses and o~­
her installations were established, where the produce of their
hinterlends was processed and distributed. Especially İstanbul
was the center where Western merchants, commissioners,
constructors and bankers lived.
One other factor which had its impact on the new spatial
arrangement was the development in transport services. New
:ls
Refer to Map V for the general spatial patter:n in the city in this era.
Ibid.. p. 243.
~>n H. İnalcık.
207 .
in~taııations like railway termİnals and harbour facilities
influenced intracity and intercity transportation, as well as the
process of change in the spatial organization of the city.
We know that there was no noteworthy industrialization
attempts in 19. century. Yet the few attempts towards industrial­
ization stilI influenced the metropolis which responded by struc­
tural changes. Therefore it is more efficient to analyze changes
in spatial organization according to different functions performed
in space.
a) Central Administrative Area: In the 19. century the
bureaucracy was modernized and many of the administrative
functions were institutionalized. Newly established ministeries
now located outside the "sadaret" (office of the Grand Vizier),
in the administrative and business center. The palace, as in the
modern cities moved out of the central area (to Dolmabahçe, later
on to Yıldız). street paving increased in the central area. Use of
stone as a construction material was encouraged. All these changes
stimulated the formation and function of modern municipal
administra tions.
b) The CBD: The old structure changed, business "han"s
(lodging for travelling merchants and workers) appeared. The
business center moved to Galata-Pera along with banks, big stores
and commercial bureaus. When Karaköy became a central active
business area and when its interrelations with the residential
district in Beyoğlu increased, necessity for the construction of
one of the first metros of Europe appeared. The metro was opened
in June 10, 1869. Since there was intense tramcar traffic between
work and residential areas, new roads had to be paved and the
old ones had to be enlarged. A concrete example of reflection of
specialization in business life to space was observed in Beyoğlu.
While traditional business order was stilI maintained in the walled
city. in Beyoğlu, shops, commercial bureaus and warehouses were
concentrated in different places in space. Thus İstanbul was
transformed into a two-center city in the 19. century. An impact
of this dual structure was also observed in the residential and
peripheriaı districts. The transitional area in Beyoğlu also carried
different characteristics then those observed in the walled city.
Districts as Asmali Mesçit, Yüksek Kaldırım in Beyoğlu were
208
o Bch;f
-
H~'I"OvI
Ayt.5tofon051
~
N
L
f A
D
tJ c 8.0
Resid"'.
;mı)
DıcO.
~ Squtjrc hOus1ny OmlS
Slum ortO!!
~KlnallOdo
e
~
Sub'-"b5
'Burçp:z Ad
~~
transformed into transitional areas where hotels, restaurants and
bcarding houses were concentrated and where crimİnal potential
was quite high.
c) The Residential Districts: Although there was no great
change in the w::ıJled city, a rapid transformation \vas being real­
iZ2d in Beyoğlu. In the residential disricts the construction of
row houses and use of stone as a construction material increased.
Ethnic groups were m.ixed in space and spatial differentiation was
nowalter social structure. Residential district extended to the
ar-:;8.S which
\vere the
and the cemetery, ego
the Latin cemetery in Taksim was ınoved to Feriköy and the arca
was turned into residential clistrict. Common spaces like parks
were established (like Tepeb?şı) . .ı.J\.partment houses became the
COmIYlOn mode of habittre. The modernization of residences and
vmy of living neCessitated concentration of municipal services !ike
transport::ıtion, h~8)t.l"!_ r.n:ı {J:':'s in Bf-yor;lu. On the other hand, pace
of change was slower in the walled city. Beyoğlu, with its stone
buildings was far supsriOi.' ccmp~'1:cerl to the old vl/oüd.en hQuses
and rur:dmvn
of the yvalled city.
The minority districts in the walled city still maintained the
same sp:-üİal composition. Only the rich groups left Balat, Fener
and Samatya in favor of Beyoğlu.
The rapid development in Beyoğlu while the rest of the city
m-aintain2d the traditlcnal character createcl difficuIties in the
consistency of municipal services. On the other hand, slum
neighborhoods W8re born in the districts where the low income
groups, employecl in marginal service jobs, lived. lVIinority districts
like Karag'Cm1rük andH,j)~eki also turned into slums. Balat, Fe­
ner and Hasköy on the other shore joined the process as welL.
Even today these districts, patterned around workshops, docks
and semi-industrial set-ups, maintain slum characteristics.
Slaugther houses and increasing number of small workshops
were located along the shores of the Golden Horn. The first seeds
of environmental poııution were thus sown.
d) The Birth of the Suburbs : One of the important spatial
processes that took place in the 19. century was the appearance
of sucurbs. Vlith the contribution of the now adequate level of
210
transport services, the smaIl settlements on both sides of the
Bosphorus (especiaIly those on the European shore) ineluding
r~!ldıköy, Vlakriköy (Bakırköy) and Ayestafonos (Yeşilköy) became
in1portant Buburban districts. 'ı'arabya-Yeniköy ccnıplex became
t~!.e pJace for SUnl111er residences of embassies and of the "Ievant".
'The Pdlice islands entered into organic relationship \-vith the city.
Hig'ht after the Beyoğlu ınunicipal adıninistration, another mod­
ern municipal administration was established for the islands:lO
Although transport services were improved greatly stiIl tram­
ran along with horsecarts and carriages and steamships along
v;ritiı rowboats. The spatial changes observed in İstanbul in this
century, should be evaluated as those originating from an
und.erdeveloped metropolitan structure. 31 The appearanee of "ge­
cekondu"s is a natural derivation from this structure and its
transfarmation.
car~)
The "Gecekondu" Districts: In this era immigrants ar­
rivjng from Anatolia and Rumelia created "gecekondu" districts
in VIsstern parts of the waIls, in Eyüp, Hasköy, Kasımpaşa and
Üsküdar. Right next to high income groups living in Beyoğlu,
lower },ncome groups lived in Kasımpaşa and Hasköy-Okmeydanı.
The same duality existed on the Anotalian shore between
lügh incoıııe groups in Kadıköyand low inconıe groups in some
"mahalles" of Üskiidar. This duaUty caused municipal administra­
tions to control narrowand smaIl area5. "'Ihen in the Parliament
the mmnbers asked why Kasımpa§a district was not included in
the ITıunicipal boundaries of Beyoğlu, the Speaker JVlehmet Vefik
Pa§a replied that the municipal services rendered for Beyoğlu
area would be too luxurious for Kasımpaşa, a poor district. 32 Those
distrIcts occupied by law income gronps and the unemployed
caused disintegration not only in the supply of municipal ser­
vices but also from the point of view of social and economic
structure.
e)
öO
31
3:!
İ. Ortaylı, Tanzimattan f;onra Me.lıaJli İdareler, TODAİE yayınlan, An­
kara, 1974, pp. ı52-153.
M.M. B. Kıray, Örgüt1eşemeyen Kent İzmir. Sosyal Bilimler Derneği,
Ankara, 1978. Gives the example of İzmir in this era.
Meclis-İ IVi:ebusan Zabıtlan, Yayınlayan H. Ta!"Ü{ Us. C. 1, p. 117- LLld
Nisan 1977 tar::'hli oturum.
211
Thus the problem of an underdeveloped metropolitan base
and its derivation, "the gecekondus", appeared in the 19. cen­
tury and gained pace in the following century.
212