Living Infrastructure

UCL Bartlett School of Architecture MArch Urban Design 10/11 UD unit 4 BENVUD 4.0 Thesis Tutors: Anna Rose + Bernhard Rettig + Dan Ringelstein

Living Infrastructure City on water and Urban Mobility

UCL Bartlett School of Architecture MArch Urban Design 10/11 UD unit 4 BENVUD 4.0 Thesis Tutors: Anna Rose + Bernhard Rettig + Dan Ringelstein

“I, Yu-Cheng Tang, confirm that the work presented in this report is my own.

Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the report.”

01

Left Crossing Right “Patchwork city”

Foreword W aterfront retreatment has been a significant issue of urban development around the world in the last two decades. Bruttomesso defines waterfront revitalisation as being “a genuine urban revolution”.

Revitalising waterfronts has the function of transforming land use, and has a particular effect on social demands and patterns. Similarly, but a little different, regenerating railway stations also became a tough task after the industrial revolution in most European cities; The site of the Sirkeci train station area, located in the historical centre of Istanbul, has the two features described above. As a result, this report seeks to discover the possibility of an urban form as an experiment to provide a sustainable solution.

The idea of a living infrastructure, which is referred to as project “Patchwork City”, is based on the needs of local Istanbul people. In a general way of thinking, infrastructure has always been defined by cold fundamental constructions, such as bridges, roads, and even facilities built by governments for their local residents. Although these may satisfy the basic needs of local people, the depth of the demand is still lacking.

This project will address both the issue of waterfront revitalisation and the reuse of railway areas. According to the proposed strategy, the project will be divided into three parts; improving the traffic network, regeneration of railway areas, and animating the waterfront to discover the possibilities for waterfront areas as well as urban Istanbul.

The aim is to find a pattern to fill the gap between the inner city and the waterfront, to increase the accessibility of the waterfront, revitalise the decaying areas in the city as a trigger to improve the environment of the historical centre, and then bring local residents back from the new CBD.

02

Table of Content Introduction

07

Revitalising with water City on terminals Spatial movement

Historical Background

23

Historical development of Port zones Evolution of the urban form_Pre-1950s The Changing Istanbul City_ Post-1950s Planning the Metropolis in the 1980s

Current Issues

29

Attempts at waterfront revitalisation in Istanbul Urban mobility Environment: local needs Defining the Historical peninsula Hagia Sophia

Topkapi Palace

03

Sirkeci Terminal

37

New Infrastructure intervention as a Trigger How to find the Site Site Analysis Constraints and Opportunities

47

Proposed Strategies: labelled by colour RGB R_Improving Traffic networks G_Regenerating railway station area B_Animating waterfront

67

Conclusion

69

Bibliography

70

Lists of illustrations

Grand Bazaar Blue Mosque

Galata Bridge

Spice Bazaar

04

Sirkeci

05

1:5000 Bus station Tram stop Train station Underground finish by 2013 Pedestrian

06

Introduction Istanbul, divided by water, stands between two main continents, and is known to be the oldest city in the world. The most unique characteristic of Istanbul is its relationship to water. The urban areas of Istanbul cover the hills, providing a great opportunity to face toward the water, and also offer spectacular views of the city.

Water has played a key role in the daily lives of Istanbul people throughout the city’s history. It also both divides and connects two main continents, as well as being a convenient and pleasant means of transit. In fact, the waterfront played a major role in recreation before the modern urban development.

Throughout the urban development, the character of the water and the function of the waterfront have been interfered with to a great extent. For instance, taking the waterfront along the Marmara sea, only 15 km of the 75 km length of the extended urban area is occupied by anything other than industry and transportation (), and only a limited amount of this small ratio of land stretching to the waterfront can be used for recreation. Moreover, only 7% of the residents use water transportation between their workplace and their homes in the CBD. (The share of highway transportation is about 87% and railroads 6%. ‘A study of the urban transportation system in Istanbul’, by Istanbul Technical University, 1990, in Cumhuriyet, 30th October 1990, p 8). This depicts the fact that the water has been separated from the daily transportation in this city.

15/75 Km 07

.

Above Constainople, the map published by the Socity for the Diffusion of Use ful knowlegde in 1840 Midlle The view of the city form the sea Below Overview of Istanbul ciity

Today, the impact of these developments greatly intervenes in the city and the lives of the residents. As is known, a waterfront has a cycle of transformation, and this means that the port that was here before may not fit the exact demand of the urban pattern anymore.

The new waterfront should be planned carefully in a sustainable way for the next half century. This project will address two main topics, namely, water revitalisation and railway regeneration, in terms of urban redevelopment. In addition, the most important issue is how people move, feel or live in this new intervention project.

Above Frery Transportation Midlle Galala Bridge which has multible layters Below The existing water edge 08

Revitalising with water

Water as a necessity

09

Water is essential to life in every form. According to Guyton’s thesis in medical Physiology, “the total amount of water in a man of average weight (70 kilograms) is approximately 40 litres, averaging 57 percent of his total body weight. In a newborn infant, the proportion of water might be as high as 75 percent of the body weight”. Furthermore, water, which has been referred to as “blue oil, is one of the world’s most valuable resources. It covers 70.9 % of the earth’s surface and is vital for any form of life, i.e. for drinking, using, and even taking a shower. Consequently, people’s relationship with water cannot be denied, although most people usually live on the surface of the land.

10

Revitalising with water Urban waterfronts, located between land and water on the earth, such as riversides and coastlines, are the most significant boundaries to contact with water. Waterfronts have become the richest areas for urban planning, and redevelopment plays a general key role in revitalising a complete city. Throughout history, rivers, lakes, or even canals have built a boundary to cut the land in metropolises.

They defined the type of character of urban areas. They were used for different functions, such as defence, trade, fishing, industry and recreation. Usually, these forms of water were the original source of the city, and also decided the unique characteristics of the city and played a key role in the daily lives of inhabitants.

In the 19th century, a most significant event affected the development of major mercantile cities such as New York, London, and Rotterdam, Chicago, Lisbon, Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town into industrial ports. Due to the invention of steam-powered boats which transported goods to other cities around the world faster, as well as in large amounts, most of the world’s waterfronts took on industrial elements, such as warehouses, docks, and wooden piers. Nevertheless, in the latter part of the century, the cities were no longer driven by their industrial heritage. In addition, the social pattern and culture of the cities have also been replaced by a newly-orientated economy. On the other hand, waterfronts were planned to be recovered as potential sites for new developments, such as residential, cultural, and recreational functions. Combining the quality of urban and rural life by water would provide a new experience.

In the latter half of the 19th century, in some cases, the adaptive reuse of former industrial buildings or innovative architecture inserted into urban structure, such as the Tate modern museum on the south bank of the River Thames in London, became new symbols of urban development. Similarly, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao also recreated the potential of a new urban edge, inspiring the integration of the city and its waterfront, and also offering fresh icons to identify new urban life along the water.

Although the nature of the waterfront offers unique features for urban development, fostering the benefits of social and environmental elements, as well as political and economic interests, the potential combination between the built environment and the water is not easy to achieve. This is not a simple process; it needs a complex and detailed plan, requiring a huge investment of time, money, and of course, substantial planning with research and design strategies.

11

“Water is the driver of nature.

Water, which is the vital humour of the terrestrial machine, moves by its own natural heat.”

– Leonardo Da Vinci

Above Leonardo DaVinci. a city on several levels, 1485, the water city.

Right Above The Tate Modern musuem at South bank, London Right Below Guggenheim Guseum in the bilbao, Spain

12

Water as a threat Throughout history, natural systems have made a dramatic phenomenon of living with water. This precious resource affects our lives in cities, whether there is too much or too little water. Due to the effect of climate change, the threat of the rapidly-melting glaciers or extreme droughts which are happening throughout the world, is reclaiming the relationship between water and its environment. Natural disasters have been as diverse as the flooding in Mozambique due to heavy rain in January 2008; the series of tsunamis in Indonesia in 2004, which killed more than 225,000 residents in seven countries; and hurricane Katrina in August, 2005, which burst into Louisiana resulting in extensive flooding along the Gulf Coast of the United States.

The examples described above are just a part of the recent disasters which emphasise the significant connection between water and the urban environment. In response to this trend, urban designers, architects and associated professional specialists are responsible for attempting to prevent these water disasters by design.

Diana Balmori, a landscape architect who dealt with projects along the Mississippi River, noted at the time that “the issue of water has been fraught with issues of control.� However, rather than fighting against it, her current work is developing alternative ways to work with water. To engage with water, Balmori wants to re-envision treatments for waters’ edges and introduce new rational bodies of thought based on alternative ways of working with water which can reduce the damage made by this natural force. On the other hand, this also provides new way of involving water. The studio of Balmori is tackling the new landscape in the form of a floating island connected to the land and it is working. The island will rise and fall with the changing height of the water during different conditions.

13

Architect Stanley Allen, dean of the School of Architecture at Princeton University, has also been engaged in several waterfront projects which aim to resolve the issue of flood protection, and the Taipei flood wall in Taiwan is an example. In 2008, Allen’s team was invited by the Taipei government to regenerate a waterfront site which included a 1 kilometer section of Taipei, facing the river Danshui and bordered by the river Keelung, with adjacent parking lots. The challenge was to reconnect the waterfront and provide public access to the site, which was then occupied by sub-parking lots and other uses. As is known, inspired by the most important mangrove forest which originated from the river Dansui, the team proposed a new mangrove forest along this river waterfront in the project.

Left Current site condition along the waterfront in Taipei showing 8-6 meter-high flood wall that protects the city from adverse weather condition and rising river levels, but also cuts the riverfront off from the city.

Above Hurricane Katrina which hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, was one of the costliest and deadiest hurricanes in the United States history, causing damage to thousands of properties and destroying major infrastructure.

Below the landscape project in the Mississippi,

USA

14

City on terminals

15

“We are not deliberately introducing chaos; it is the contemporary system that is doing so, with its contradictory assemblage of architectural wills, populist sensibilities, financial policies, triumphant dreams, and so on�.

-Rem Koolhaas, the Euralille’ s master planner

16

City on terminals The redevelopment of railway station areas is one of the most challenging tasks facing cities in the industrialised world today (Bertolini,1998). Throughout urban Europe, railway stations and their surroundings are the focus of ambitious redevelopment. Although each city has unique features and solutions for redevelopment, both similar and different experiences of redevelopment can be found in history. The only similar issue for most industrial cities is the tough task of how to cross the lines which divide the area into two parts.

However, time may be another issue. It is hard to say how much information we can learn from others, and the planning and development of a railway usually takes a long time. The data and information of the previous railway becomes out of date, changes and disappears in the current works. Consequently, the benefits of sharing redevelopment knowledge are evident.

According to Bertolini’s thesis, as a geographical entity, a railway station has two basic elements, one of which is a node, a point of access to trains and a connection to other transportation networks. The other is a place; a specific area of the city with a focus on infrastructure but also with diverse buildings and open spaces.

17

Above the model of the the Euralille Below The masterplan of the Euralille Right The railway station as node and Place (Bertolini L, and T., Spit. 1998.)

Nodes

Places

systems than seaports and airports, and a second difference is the spatial reach. The reach of the system is more limited in stations than the others. Finally, the limited adaptability of network configurations is higher for air routes and waterway networks, but lower for railway networks.

they were originally built. In contrast, it is easy to move seaports from their original locations, and airports are located more outside urban areas when they are first built. Nevertheless, there is an important implication in these differences. In Bertolini ‘s book “Cities on rail”, he claims that “the non-transport world tends to have a much stronger presence in railway stations than in seaports and airports.”

In addition, not only different sorts of use and users, but more non-transport activities take place in railway station areas.

Interaction of nodes and One difference is that the railway Another difference is the loca- places: attempts to connect a broader tion of the terminals. Most rail- railway stations (railports), range of other transportation way stations are located where airport and seaports

Station as Nodes

Station as Places

What do airports, seaports and railway stations have in common? Firstly, not only airports, but also railway stations (railports) were initially built as nodes in a transportation network of waterways, railways and flight routes. Moreover, these nodes turned into multimodal intersections of goods and passenger flows. However, apart from the nodal function, they are places which occupy a particular space; a station area, a harbour city, and an airport in the city in a particular kind of intersection within the area. Thus, is there any difference between them?

Station as nodes and Place

18

Spatial movement

19

“The urban form and the land use pattern of the city which developed according to the transportation network, have not only reduced the accessibility of the waterfronts and weakened the relationship the residents of Istanbul had with water.�

-Yenem. Z., Y. Unal, and Z. Merey-Enlil, IstanbulA city of waterfronts or a city Inland

20

Spatial movement

Basic Movement The act of crossing space moved from natural necessity to finding food for survival. However, once this need was satisfied, moving took the form of a symbol that enabled man to settle down in the world. As Francesco says, “walking is a art from whose loins spring the menhir, sculpture, architecture, landscape” This simple act has enhanced the relationship man has established with the environment, namely, land and territory. As a consequence, it is possible to define walking as a form of urban intervention.

Moving networks as a living infrastructure From the 1930s to the 1960s, there were many design proposals for new urban typologies to create a connection between modern housing types and modern infrastructure () For example, Le Corbusier’s designs for Algiers in the 1930s, where housing and motorway were one infrastructure, and a proposal by Smithsons for a new highway and pedestrian-related infrastructure in the Golden Lane Project for London. Another classic proposal was made

by Louis Kahn for Philadelphia, where he used waterways and the harbour as a metaphor to describe a big infrastructure in the form of buildings and parking lots.

21

Above The Concept of Living Infrastructure Below Bedolina, Val Camonica, Italia one of the first maps representing a system of routes dates back about 10,000 years ago

Expressways are like Rivers These Rivers frame the area to be served Rivers have Harbours Harbours are the municipal parking towers from the Harbours branch a system of Canals that serve the interior the Canals are the go streets from Canals branch cul-de-sac Docks the Docks serve as entrance halls to the buildings -Luis Kahn, 1958

Above Philadelphia. Plan for housing with parking garages:design by Luis Kahn,1958

22

Historical Background Historical development of port zones Throughout history, the function of waterfronts has been a cycle of transformation with diverse uses such as defence, fishing, trade, transportation, industry, and recreation. Each of these functions shaped the waterfront in a different way and also formed different water-urban integration models.() Urban form of Istanbul Yet, throughout the port development of Istanbul, the 1950s stands as a significant period, which divided two main processes of transformation in periods of time () to define the traditional relationship between the urban area and its waterfront. Firstly, a summary of the evolution of Istanbul’s urban form before the 1950s is provided below. Secondly, the post-1950s period will be described, demonstrating that the relationship decayed with the impact of the urban form of Istanbul due to a rapid increase in the population and policies of land use and transportation networks.

Evolution of the urban form: Pre-1950s Historically, Istanbul has been a city divided by water. During the period of the Ottoman Empire until the mid-nineteen century, the historical peninsula lying on the south bank of the Golden Horn was the main capital, while the Galata area was located on the northern bank. The Istanbul peninsula was the administrative centre, while Galata became the commercial centre. Although not as high in density, the rural area covered most sections of Istanbul.

Many settlements were located on both the Asian and European sides of the Bosphorus, and the areas between these settlements were occupied by woodland and farms. These functioned as recreational areas for the people of Istanbul. The phenomenon of a “Galaxy of settlements” on both sides of the Bosphorus initially formed the urban pattern with an extensive radius of three kilometers in length. Yet, due to the need to commute between the two sections divided by water, an early system of water transportation was developed in Istanbul, with rowing boats and barges between the two parts of the city.

Above Existing ports and potential port lands of Istanbul in early 1900s.

(Koraltürk 2001) 23

Stage

Symbol city City

Period Port

Ancient - medieval to 19th century

II. Expanding city port

19th - early 20th century

III. Modern industrial city port

mid - 20th century

IV. Retreat from the waterfront

1960s-1980s

V. Development of the waterfront

1970s-1990s

Large - scale modern port consumes large areas of land- and water- space; urban renewal of original core

Source: B.S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder. and M.S Husain, ed. Revitalising the Waterfront. London, Belhaven Press, 1988

Existing port Potential portland Potential port 24

During the second half of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire became the main source of raw material, cotton and so on, which opened a door to connect Istanbul to the rest of Europe.

An extensive infrastructure was built in order to better connect to European cities. Hence, two bridges were built over the Golden Horn to connect the Istanbul peninsula and Galata. In addition, the railroad and a train station were also constructed and the harbours were improved.

As for the operation of steamboats, this initially served high-ranking governmental officers and Europeans living along the Bosphorus, and then became the first form of mass transportation for the benefit of Istanbul residents. (Celik, 1984, 191-198) Meanwhile, the development of the transportation network enlarged its length to five kilometers in radius by expanding to provide new transit lines throughout the city.

25

Changing Istanbul city: Post-1950s Starting from the 1950s until the 1960s and 1970s, the governmental policies have given a high priority to the construction of the highway system rather than any other transportation method, both in the urban and rural areas of Istanbul. This has had a significant effect on the urban form of the great metropolis of Istanbul city. Yet, due to the domination of this mode of transportation, medium-sized industries were formed from small ones during the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, the population grew and the centre of the city became denser than before.

Decentralisation During the process of development, the middle and high income groups decided to live in the suburbs rather than the most densely-populated areas of the city (Kiray, 1984, 33) As a result, the ferry and the suburban railway became the major forms of transportation in the daily commute to work.

Nonetheless, due to the bridge being constructed to cope with the growth in private car owners, the major modes of transportation began to change, and within five years, private vehicles dominated 80 percent of the vehicles which crossed the bridges, while only 12 percent was mass transportation vehicles (Ormanlar, 1976,49)

Planning the Metropolis in the 1980s During the period between the 1950s and 1984, the central government held the political power, and was the supreme decisionmaking authority. All the city plans had to be approved by the central government. This procedure contributed to the loss of planning control by local governments, not only because of the long duration before plans were approved, but also because the central government was not able to clearly understand the local needs and interact with them.

In 1984, the administrative power to make decisions was transferred from central to local governments. However, since the Master Planning Bureaus were closed in the same year, Istanbul lost its effective organisation and functionally-effective planning body. As a result of the policies of the 1980s, which aimed to make Istanbul a world-class city, large projects were constructed, such as a second bridge cross the Bophorus and the highway system, luxury hotels and other main infrastructure. However, none of these main projects were built according to the master plan. Furthermore, in terms of projects around the water, these did not really consider the development of the waterfront and its relationship with the city. Ironically, at the same time, the government announced that water played a key role in the life of Istanbul.

26

Historical Background Period

The share of water between 1913-1928 was 33%

Urban form -Pre-1950s

The fourth bridge was built in 1920

1.2 million from the 1950s

The City’s urban form Post-1950s

Marmaray Project will be completed by 2013 12.9 million from the 2010s 27

The city development

Radius: 3km Rowing boats and barges

Radius : 5km Steamboats and Railway development

Motorway development and private cars growth rapidly

Metro +?

28

Current Issues

As cities’ important assets harbours today face a series of challenges.

While maintaining their primary functions, they also have to meet the demands of social, economic, and ecological particularities of the city.

29

30

Current Issues Attempts at waterfront revitalisation in Istanbul Waterfronts have always played a major role in the economic and social life of cities throughout history. The harbours around which cities’ relationship with the rest of the world and within its vicinity is defined still maintain their integrated functions. As cities’ important assets harbours today face a series of challenges. While maintaining their primary functions, they also have to meet the demands of social, economic, and ecological particularities of the city.

The pressures coming from global and local relationships are to be regulated by new planning policies for harbours, which involve losing their original functions and offering the potential of development. They are considered as settings for innovative areas to convert their industrial heritages into cultural uses, integrating their open spaces with the rest of the city as a recreational axis, developing housing and commercial functions for their communities.

31

A great deal can be learned from the recent achievements of New York, London and Barcelona, which are examples of sustainable harbour regeneration.

Exisitng Water edge Middle Car Ferry Termial Below (Left to right) Passenger Ferry Terminal Cruiser Terminal Fishing on the Bridge Train Ferry Terminal Ferry Terminal

Istanbul is among the cities which face major changes in their fringes, centres and waterfronts. The projects on the agenda of the city’s plans within the past 20 years aimed at converting the deteriorating areas for new uses. It is argued that converting the potential of Istanbul through urban projects may enhance its competitive capacity. It has been observed that, in the last decade, the globalisation process has affecting Istanbul a great deal in many aspects.

With its geographical and strategic location, historical and cultural assets, dynamism and functional capacities, the city is in the process of being transformed into a global city. The new development modes which are emerging in the areas of the service sectors are attracting global capital and investment. On the other hand, the city is growing its national, regional and internal dynamics.

The impact of these developments is as great on socio-economic aspects as it is on spatial growth, and on the planning process.

32

Up to

50.5 % Commuting by walking

“Istanbul is the economic and financial heart of one of the world’s 20 largest economies.”

Urban mobility Traffic and transport congestion fer to have a range of collective is one of the strongest charac- methods to deal with traffic conDay 5 (by ferry &tram) Day 6 (by ferry &walking) Day 7 (by walking) 8 (by tram & plane) teristics of all mega cities, espe- Daygestion, and they also support a cially in Istanbul. According to a policy of a congestion charge like survey of “Istanbul: City of inter- the one introduced in London sections”, the methods of trans- Environment: local needs portation used by people in the Istanbul is a modern mega city, city focused on motorised vehi- full of contrasts. Rapid growth cles in the past. However, today, with little effective planning has up to 50.5 percent of Istanbul brought relative problems such residents walk between home as unemployment, an informal and their destination, while only sector economy, uncontrolled 10 percent of them use a car to and illegal land occupation, the commute. In addition, 83 percent growth of shanty towns, seriof people in Istanbul would wel- 4km ous traffic congestion, and water come a policy which reduced the pollution. () Overall, the biggest 2km concerns of local people in Istannumber of private car owners, and encouraged mass transpor- bul are job opportunities and ed1km tation, cycling and walking. Bet- ucation. In addition, traffic conter public transport means that it gestion is always a major issue is faster, less crowded and more in Istanbul, when local residents comfortable. Finally, Istanbul get stuck in their daily movepeople think that investment in ments. According to the OECD the tube system and the expan- , more than 380,000 vehicles sion of the bus networks in the cross the bridges every day while city would improve traffic condi- they were only designed to carry tions. Generally, they would pre- a daily load of 270,000 vehicles.

Overlapped Routes within a radius

33

Defining the historical peninsula In the beginning of 2010, after the Istanbul field trip, three classmates in unit 4 had a similar initial idea for Istanbul, and started to work as a group to determine the definition of the historical peninsula, Fatih.

When considering other historical sites around the world, the group decided to compare Istanbul and Venice, which have similar characteristics in terms of history and tourism, but are basically quite different. According to the above diagram, there are three bubbles which define the orientation of the two cities, namely, Commercial, Museum, and Living City. Firstly, due to their historical background, both cities have their own historical monuments to attract millions of visitors per year. These tourists enhance the growth of the commercial sector, including retail, hotels, restaurants, and so on. Finally, the Living City indicates the phenomenon that residents outflow to other cities like the CBD. While Venice is a successful tourist city, Istanbul is a developing one, and it has more opportunities to avoid the outflow of residents and attract the local residents back from the CBD. Consequently, the aim is to find a balanced location between the three bubbles.

Introduction

Population 12,800,000 (Fatih 450,000) Area 5,343 sqkm Tourists 63,000/day

Population 272,000 (Main island 60,000) Area 412 sqkm (Main Island 7.8 sqkm) Tourists 50,000/day

Background

Living city(Fatih area in Istanbul)

Museum City(Main Island of Venice)

Geography

Identity

Transportation system

Open Space

34

Intervention

Cars Buses

Pedestrian Tramway Railway

Ferry for pedestrian, vehicle and Train Underground tube 35

I n f r a s t r u c t u r e

36

New infrastructure intervention as a Trigger The aim of this project is to improve the city development by implementing a new intervention. The initial concept of the intervention is based on waterfront revitalisation, with railway regeneration as a trigger. The conceptual diagram below indicates that the new intervention intends to transform the three bubbles. For example, in terms of the Marmaray project, according to the data from the official Marmaray project website, due to the establishment of a new underground station, the daily number of passengers will rapidly grow from 10,000 to 75,000.

In addition, each Istanbul commuter will save 81 minutes per day. It seems that Istanbul residents will have more time for recreation instead of suffering from traffic congestion. Then, the recreational activities will foster the development of a Museum and a Living City such as an art gallery, museum, and an aquarium to provide job opportunities for local residents. Then, the flow of residents and growth in the number of tourists will attract local investment for the construction of new hotels and restaurants.

Finally, the government could build other new infrastructure as a new cycle using plentiful tax revenue.

How to find the site?

37

Movable radius mapping by GPS The diagram below shows the radius mapping recorded during the 8 days of the field trip to Istanbul, and the unexpected version indicates the movable area in Istanbul by different transportation means, i.e. aircraft, train, tram, bus, ferry and walking. Firstly, walking and taking a tram are the most used forms of transport within a 1 km radius.

Moreover, not only walking and trams, but also ferries and trains are used within a 2 km radius. Apart from walking, trains, trams and ferries are the only forms of transportation used within a 4 km radius.

However, it is interesting to note that the densest node is located in the Sirkeci terminal, a complex intersection if the routes were overlapped on these 8 days. It seems that the most appropriate site might be located in this node, i.e. the Sirkeci terminal area, to combine all the methods of transportation.

Transform

Day 1 (by plane &tram)

Day 2 (by tram &walking)

Day 5 (by ferry &tram)

Day 6 (by ferry &walking)

Day 3 (by walking)

Day 7 (by walking)

Day 4 (by tram &walking)

Day 8 (by tram & plane)

Land Use Commerce Green Space Eduction/School Residence/Hotel Government facility Religion/Mosque Barrier/Wall

38

Site Analysis Sirkeci is an area near the Eminönü neighbourhood in the Fatih district of Istanbul city, Turkey. It has been named as the area in Eminönü which surrounds the Sirkeci terminal, which is a long distance passenger train terminus in Europe for the Orient Express.

Transportation Sirkeci remains one of the main travel spots of Istanbul, connecting diverse transportation, including suburban trains, trains, buses, and of course, ferry systems. The Sirkeci station has been defined as one of the main stations in Istanbul because of its two main lines, one of which is the Orient Express, connecting Thessaloniki, Greece, Bucharest, and Romania. The other is a new underground railway line connecting Halkalı along the Marmara sea. The Marmaray Project connecting the European and Asian networks is under construction and will be finished by 2013. It will also serve Sirkeci station.

Land use The Sirkeci area, located on the north eastern side of the historical peninsula, has been defined as once being the administrative centre. Therefore, many active or inactive buildings which belonged to the Istanbul government still stand in this area, especially in the train station area. In contrast, the Galata area opposite the historical peninsula, divided by the Golden Horn, has been defined as being the main commercial centre. These two areas are connected by the Galata bridge, which has two layers serving both vehicles and pedestrians. It is interesting to note that the upper level of the Galata bridge serves as a tram line and motorway, while the lower layer includes cafes and restaurants serving the pedestrians walking across.

Sirkeci Train station The area surrounding Sirkeci station consists mainly of commerce (commercial city) and tourists (Museum city), with mixed small shops, hans (local workshops), offices, boutique hotels, traditional restaurants, bookstores, and great historical monuments. Therefore, the aim of this project is to find the balance of the city between these to strengthen the part of the Living City.

39

Sirkeci

1:5000 Bus station Tram stop Train station Underground finish by 2013 Pedestrian

Routes and ports in the Byzantine(330-1453)

Main open space

Urban Context

Accessibility from city to Waterfront40

Constraints and Opportunities

“The urban form and the land use pattern of the city which was developed according to the transportation network, have not only reduced the accessibility of the waterfront, but weakened the relationship the residents of Istanbul had with water.

-Yenen Istanbul: A city of waterfronts or a City inland (1998. 120)

41

42

Constraints and Opportunities Motorway Due to the topography, the development of the motorway was built along the waters’ edge of the historical peninsula. Generally, this is the crucial cause of the reduction of accessibility between the two sides of the waterfront and the inner city.

Railway Most areas surrounding the train station are decaying, occupying large tracts of land but having been abandoned because of constraints such as maintenance and parts of the railway. Moreover, due to the plan to complete the new underground station by 2013, the underground railway passenger flow will increase seven-fold, so it seems that the reuse of the railway station area will be another issue.

Ferry terminal The main function of the waterfront of this site is transportation, serving 4 main passenger terminals, 1 car ferry terminal which occupies a huge area reducing the waterfront accessibility from the city, 1 abandoned train ferry terminal, and 1 existing international cruiser terminal located at the north eastern end of the peninsula.

Topography The Golden Horn divides the European side of Istanbul into two parts, i.e. the ancient city known as the historical peninsula on the south bank and the Galata port on the north bank. The ancient city sits on seven hills with its historical monuments, making a major axis which connects the main areas all around, producing a unique skyline of the city and creating unexpected views from different areas of the inner city. Thus, the project has been roughly divided into three parts by the different levels of topography, each one of which has its features. The green one represents the inner city including the historical monument, the Topaki Palace; the blue one is known as the waterfront along the Golden Horn which exists as a harbour today. Finally, the red between the two of them is the new intervention of the living infrastructure, connecting the Right Above The Constraints , green and blue ones, coordinating a spatial concept between them. Strengthe and Potential analysis Right Below Topograhy

43

Strength

Constraints

Potential

1

Topaki Palace

1

Bus station

1

Train ferry

2

Sea Park

2

Passenger subway

2

Abandoned track

3

Sirkeci train terminal

3

Subway to tram

3

Train maintenance.

4

Main commercial street 4

Gas station

4

Storage

5

Spice Bazaar

5

Car parks

5

Car parks

6

Galata bridge

6

Car ferry

7

Barrier

8

Street full of car parks

9

2 Story car parks

6 1

10 Military facility 2

3 2

1

9

5

6

8

4

4

7 2

5 3

3

10

4 5 1

Waterfront Motorway Green space

+6

+1

+4 +3 +5

+1

+2 +4

+1

+4

+2

+3

+1

+2 +3

+2

+4 +5

+4 +5

+4

+3

+5

+6

+10

+8 +12

+5 +6

+10

+6

+20 +30

+40

+10 +10

+20

+42

44

Case Studies

Above left Maquette of westway Park: design by Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, 1980-1985 Above right Redevelopment above and below the motorway Middle Poble Nou: four-layered plan analysis. Bottom to top: a. urban and landscape-related context of the design. b. large-scale structural elements; c. “superblocks’ d. suburban infilling.

Bellow Tokyo bay, Kenzo 45 Tange,1960

Above Right three-layered plan of Barcelona harbor. Bottom to top: a.harbor front as part of seaside landscape. b. harbor front as part of the beltway. c. harbor front as part of the local network.

Above Left Zuidas: the infrastructure integration models. From top to bottom: dike, deck, dock.

Below The Brooklyn Queens Expressway uses the sloping ground to advantage to cantilever the carriageways over each other

46

Proposed Strategies: labeled by color RGB

47

48

R_Improving Traffic networks Existing mobility Transportation methods Pedestrian way

1 2

2 3

6

4 5

Proposed diagram

P

P

P P

49

1

2

3

4

Motorway as a barrier

1

Connected to Bridge by commercial activities

2

Lifting pedestrian way up to ground from subway

Subway

Motorway as barrier

Car ferry terminal as barrier

3

Pedestrian deck to connected two sides

4

Relocating the car ferry terminal

50

Intervention_Marmaray Project 10000 passengers

185mins

75000 passengers per day

104mins/per day/per passenger

Saving

81

mins

mins/per day/per passenger

Waterfronts Markets

Waterfront

Green Park

7X Museum

51

X

7

5

6

5

Train track as barrier

Where is destination ? _Sirkeci train station _Waterfront _Sea theme park

6

Bridging to regenerating space along railway

Reuse Abandoned track

1 2 3 Transportation methods Pedestrian way

Transportation networks

52

G_Regenerating railway station area

Existing Public space Attraction/monument Square/green park Public space Abandoned Space

7

1 2

3

5

6

4

Proposed Diagram

53

1

2 storeyed parking tower

2

Decaying street

1 Parking policy to reduce vehicles ow in the area 2 Regenerating the street by creating green belt Toward Terry terminal

P

P

P

P

Toward Sirkeci station

P Toward Spice Bazaar

3 Decaying or Abandoned public space Petrol Station

3 Revitalizing space at 2 sides of the train station 4 Connected Underground station by tunnel

P Toward Terry terminal

Storage P P

Public square

P

INFO

Entrance of Museum areas Toward Spice Bazaar

4 Decaying terminal square

54

Development along new underground station A_Open air theater

B_Sirkeci station Square

I A 5

Decaying Railway area

B

Sirkeci Train station Entrance of Museum areas

6

Maintenance areas

New underground station

I_Pav

7

55

Abandoned Train ferry terminal

5

Regenerating railway as new linear park

6

Refurbishing maintenance as museum

7

X-game thematic park

C_Railway museum

D_Railway park

E_Jazz festival in front of ancient wall

F

F_X-Game Park on track

D C E

H

villion with stage on water

G H_Art Village

G_Tokapi Palace

56

B_Animating waterfront Existing Waterfront Attraction/monument Public Space Harbours

1 5

2 3

6 4

Proposed Diagram

57

1

Port square

2

Passenger terminal

3

Car ferry terminal

4

Swiss hotel as pavilion

5

Cruiser terminal

6

Node park

New Attraction

10km far away Aquarium

Topaki Palace

Bayrampasa

Hagia Sophia

Blue mosque

Istanbul will build Europe’s largest aquarium!

Turkuazoo Istanbul Aquarium will provide a vital additional value to the cultural city of Istanbul. _55,000 m2 big _the largest aquarium in Europe. _house 25,000 sea creatures. _The water and creatures in the aquarium will come from the Sea of Marmara and be delivered by truck and ships.

Commercial Recreation Culture Aquarium in shopping mall

58

Storyboard_the view from movement City

Port

1 2

7 3

4

5 6 8 10

9

11

12

13 14

59

15 16

2_International Cruiser 3_Yachet

1_Aquarium

4_Carousel

5_Vendors

8_Seafood market

11_Pedestrian deck

14_Fishing on the bridge

6_Seafood vendor/market

9_Ferry Terminal

12_Terminal lounge

15_Vendor on water

3_Stage on water

7_Ocean Festival

10_Seabird

13_Rooftop square

16_Waterfont square

60

Masterplan

61

62

Sections_Connection from city to waterfront

Existing waterfront section

Department store/Hotel

New Tube station by 2013

Parking tower/Retails

Mosque

Ancient Wall

Sirkeci Train station

Railway museum Square

Station Square

Warehouse/Retail/Cafe’

Thematic railw

63 Topaki Palace

Art Village

Railway Museum

way park

m

E D

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

Section A

Retail/Cafe’/Restaurant/Ferry terminal

Departure/Arrival

Section B

Stage/Retail/Info/Restaurant

Section C

Harbour for recreation Concert Hall/Retail/Cafe’

Section D

64 Pavillion

Restaurant/Cafe’

Experiment on models

65

66

Conclusion Waterfront revitalisation attempts have become a common issue around the world. The function of waterfronts is changing to recreation instead of transport, industry, fishing and so on, following the local demand and social pattern of the cities. As a result, most developing and developed cities are devoted to regenerating their water’s edge in a sustainable manner. This means that the government might need to discover an urban structure for a new waterfront to last for the coming 40 to 50 years. The case presented above indicates the process of retreatment of the waterfront in Istanbul.

As one of the most important port cities in history, Istanbul has experienced an incredible regeneration process. Water has always historically dominated Istanbul’s daily life by acting as a defence wall, a trade route, a means of transportation, and even a recreational area.

Where ports in Istanbul used to play a role as key intersection points in the city, they will now become part of the urban pattern in modern city life. As a result, the waterfront revitalisation in Istanbul has become the first aim of urban development. However, it will face several challenges, such as policy, economic and environmental constraints.

Today, most of the industrial centres in Turkey are located near the water’s edge. The Turkish government has great potential to rebuild its waterfront. Nonetheless, most Turkish ports have faced different revolution periods than other port cities. According to “Waterfront revitalisation as a challenging Urban issue”, Bas Buluner (2006,4) indicates that most ports in city centres are still in an active use.

Furthermore, port cities in Turkey have not experienced a period of abandonment, which may cause problems for some of them.

Thus, it seems that waterfront revitalisation is a new trend in Turkey.

67

Finally, Istanbul was planned to be a world city due to the policy established in the 1980s but it still has faced many practical difficulties in focusing on urban issues.The urban form and pattern developed along the transportation network has not only reduced the accessibility of the waterfront, but also all but destroyed the relationship the local residents had with water. However, the waterfronts are unmatched sources of recreation, which are, at the same time, places highly sought after for other developments, especially those with a high potential of becoming a city, since the water provides good opportunities for public transportation. In addition, part of the waterfront area should be rearranged as a new port, which is a significant function in a metropolis.

.

68

Bibliography Maas, W. and G. La., 2007. Skycar City , Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.

Buluner, B,2006. Waterfront revitalisation as a challenging Urban issue Bell J., 2001. Car Architecture, Basel: Birkhauser.

Bertolini L, and T., Spit. 1998. Cities on rails, E&FN Spon: London and New York.

Buluner B., 2006. Waterfront Revitalization as a Challenging Urban issue in Istanbul.

Breen, A. and D, Rigby, 2010. The new Waterfront: a worldwide urban success story.

Bruttomesso, R., 1993. Waterfronts.

Careri Francesco, 2002. Walkscapes Lanoografica.

Gimenez, E. & Sauer B., 2010. Rethinking the waterfront: Reading the Valencian Waterfront.

Karaman, Aykut., 2010. Waterfront Developments of Istanbul: Current Issues.

Liernur, Jorge F., 2007. Puerto Madero Waterfront.

Meyer, H. 1999. City and port: urban planning as a cultural venture in London, Barcelona, New York, and Rotterdam. the University of Michigan Schubert, D., 2010 Shift from ships to chips: Waterfront (Re-)Development in North America-Projects, Experience and Tasks.

Yenen, Z., Unal, Y., and Merey-Enlil, Z. Istanbul: A city of waterfronts or a city inland.

Ryan. Z., 2010. Building with water, Medialis: Birkhauser

69

Lists of illustrations Cover http://www.photographium.com/ 07T History of Urban design 08T Volkan Albayrak 08M http://www.panoramio.com/ 08B http://www.panoramio.com/ 09A http://emilysutherland.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/water.jpg 11 Leanardo Da Vinci 12T http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/londonlandmark.shtm 12B http://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es/secciones/el_museo/el_edificio.php?idioma=en 13L Built with Water 13R Balmori Associates 14T http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/category/hurricane-katrina/ 14B Balmori Associates 17A OMA 22 City and Port/Luis Kahn 24 ISoCaRp Congress 2006 25 http://www.photographium.com/ 27 http://www.panoramio.com/ 29 http:// www.panoramio.com/ 31L http://www.panoramio.com/ 31M http://www.panoramio.com/ 31R http://www.panoramio.com/ 32L http://www.panoramio.com/ 39 http://www.panoramio.com/ 41 http://www.panoramio.com/ 45 City and Port 46 City and Port

70

Living Infrastructure

Yu-Cheng Tang