Content uploaded by Melih Birik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Melih Birik on Oct 20, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diagnosis of an historical layer from urban context to building scale:
The case of Istanbul, Levent Farm and Barracks
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
Megaron
https://megaron.yildiz.edu.tr - https://megaronjournal.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2024.99148
Article
*Corresponding author
*E-mail adress: melih.birik@msgsu.edu.tr
Published by Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Türkiye
is is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Melih BİRİK*
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul, Türkiye
ABSTRACT
is paper presents a methodological approach to the process of identifying the traces of
Levent Farm and Barracks in the urban landscape of late 18- and early 19-century Istanbul,
contextualizing and recording these structures as part of a settlement complex. e research
methodology includes the preparation of a prediction map, inter-scale evaluations based on
cross-referencing with written sources, and the correlation of the ndings with historical
geography and the contemporary urban context. In this way, the building traces determined
by the exploratory eld surveys have been holistically identied as part of the Levent Farm and
Barracks and registered as tangible cultural heritage values. e research outputs oer a new
perspective on the spatial development of 18-century Istanbul in the context of urban history
and urban archaeology, while revealing the potential of evaluating current planning and
design processes together with the cultural heritage of the modern period and the potential of
valuing dierent cultural layers as a whole.
Cite this article as: Birik, M. (2024). Diagnosis of an historical layer from urban context to
building scale: e case of Istanbul, Levent Farm and Barracks. Megaron, 19(3), 416-433.
ARTICLE INFO
Article history
Received: 30 July 2024
Revised: 09 October 2024
Accepted: 12 October 2024
Key words:
Levent Farm and Barracks;
cultural heritage; eld survey;
urban context; urban history.
INTRODUCTION
e aim of this paper is to identify the context of the late
18- and early 19-century Levent Farm and Barracks
settlement complex, the traces of which have been lost
due to rapid urbanization in Istanbul, within the historical
urban landscape and to provide an overview of the process
of developing the prediction map required for exploratory
eld surveys. In this context, an analytical process was
followed for the holistic evaluation of a potential urban
archaeological site that reveals an important cultural
heritage value in the urban development process of Istanbul.
e Levent Region, which is the subject of the research, is
currently under the pressure of rapid urban transformation.
In the process of demolition and reconstruction, the spatial
qualities of the urban area, as well as traces of cultural
heritage values within the urban fabric that have not yet
been identied, are under the threat of losing their structural
integrity. It is necessary to identify the widespread area in
the urban landscape where this potential can be located and
to identify the structural traces in relation to the existing
urban context.
Based on these concerns and following the general
denitions provided by the research project (Birik, 2022),
this paper focuses on the development of a dataset for the
diagnosis of spatial traces through exploratory eldwork.
M
E
GARON
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
417
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Today’s Levent Region became an important part of the
defense of the Bosphorus with the allocation of Levent
Farm to Cezayirli Hasan Pasha in 1793, in the process of
innovative breakthroughs and modernization of the army
during the reign of Selim III (Ahmet Fâiz Efendi, 1993).
During this period, the Bosphorus was a strategic waterway
connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and thus
had strategic importance in terms of eliminating threats
to the capital of the Ottoman Empire from the north. As
the rst spatial organization of the Barracks within the
framework of the regulations dated 1794 declared the
New Order for military organization within the scope of
"Nizam-ı Cedid," a modern settlement model was created
in the farm area (Shaw & Ezel, 2002). Although the
settlement was burnt and destroyed during the Janissary
Revolt in 1808, it continued to be partially used, with
repairs made in the following periods (Beydilli & Şahin,
2001). Levent Farm and Barracks is seen as the rst modern
settlement of the New Order period (Beydilli, 1995). e
ocial records of the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Ministry of Türkiye (hereinaer referred to as BOA), dated
1805, indicate that this successful development was seen
as a model and an example for new military settlements
(BOA, 1805). e settlement consisted of two hospitals,
schools, workshops, administrative buildings, two large
barracks, and various social and technical infrastructure
units, as well as agricultural facilities associated with the
complex. In addition to military personnel, many foreign
technical advisors and trainers were also accommodated.
ese inhabitants exceeded ten thousand at its peak
(Beydilli, 1995). However, aer the late 19 century, there
are no records of this settlement complex, except for a few
agricultural farms, dairies, and a few military outposts.
From the 1950s, in parallel with the modern urbanization
process and new housing policies in Istanbul, residential
constructions started to develop in the area, and the traces
of the Levent Farm and Barracks were lost under the
modern urban fabric. Until 2021, neither the location nor
any structural traces of the old settlement were precisely
identied, except for the Sultan Pavilion. Despite this
signicant cultural heritage potential, the Levent Region
is best known for the Levent Neighborhoods, which were
developed in the 1950s in accordance with new housing
policies, and are now recognized as a leading cultural
heritage site of the modern period of Istanbul. During this
period, oering a new lifestyle and change with a better
urban environment for the neglected city center, Levent
was dened as the area where the city meets modernity
(Karabey, 2011). As one of the rst modern neighborhoods
in Istanbul, the rst phases of the Levent Housing Projects
were designed with the garden city approach in 1947. e
4 Section, the last phase of the Levent Neighborhoods
completed in 1957, was developed in accordance with the
legislation on multi-storey construction and the principle
of progression of public and private spaces (Arû, 1992).
With its public spaces, residences of dierent typologies,
wide avenues, social areas, facades with decorative modern
art, and shopping spaces with large car parks, the Levent 4th
Section Housing Project attracted public attention (Arû,
1956). In movies and magazine reports from the 1960s and
1970s, the city's elite, traveling by "automobile" on "proper
roads" between "housing blocks" and "villas with gardens"
in the Levent Neighborhood, were oering an attractive
lifestyle. Meanwhile, in terms of the contemporary daily life
of the period, the Levent Region oered ideal opportunities
to workers, artists, writers, middle-income civil servants,
and those who wanted to build a new life a little far from
the city center, yet close to it. In short, the modern life of
Istanbul was being shaped here.
is spatial conguration and the lifestyle that the Levent
Region presented spread to a wider area, providing
connections to the housing projects that developed in the
1970s. is situation extended to Nispetiye and Büyükdere
Avenues, on the upper level of the Bosphorus, which Prost
dened as the "Corniche Superieure" in his 1944 plan.
e region was seen as a potential site for large housing
projects due to its characteristic wide property pattern
resulting from its former military lands and farms. rough
new transportation strategies and the decentralization of
industry, the revival of the peripheries as an alternative to the
tired urban fabric in the center was dened as a step towards
creating the modern city (Bilsel, 2010). e foundations
of integrated, permeable neighborhoods starting from
Levent and extending to Akatlar, Etiler, and Uçaksavar
Neighborhoods through Baltalimanı Valley were established
in recognition of this potential (Birik, Aksoyak ve Çalışkan,
2022). is situation reveals that the residential areas that
developed in the region until the 1980s were a continuation
of the period that began with modern housing projects and
the expansion of housing cooperatives, while at the same
time continuing the modern culture described above.
Two dierent perspectives emerged from the planning
approach that developed in historic cities between 1950
and 1970: the development of new settlements outside
the center, which allowed for spatial expansion, or
urban renewal practices that did not yet include holistic
conservation strategies and damaged the historic fabric
(Dinçer, 2011). Similarly, the modernization of cities in
Turkey, which started in the mid-20th century, was based
on the demolition and reconstruction method in historical
centers. It can be said that this practice allowed the traces
of cultural heritage to disappear and damaged the identity
of the place (Tekeli, 1998). Today, the need for a holistic
approach to urban identity in a broad geographical context
within the scope of the historical urban landscape has been
recognized (UNESCO, 2012). With this contemporary
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
418
approach, it is suggested that potential areas outside the
historic core should be mapped and identied, their
vulnerability to rapid urban development should be
diagnosed, and they should be integrated into planning
and design processes, bringing them together with daily life
(UNESCO, 2012).
Accordingly, the Levent Region, which is located today in
the central urban area of Istanbul, has faced the risk of losing
the spatial qualities it accumulated throughout the modern
period. e transformation of permeable neighborhoods
into gated communities has accelerated, and the spatial
identity of the Levent Region has changed as a result of new
and fast transportation connections, rising rent values, and
increasing non-residential use of the area. Although Levent
Neighborhoods were declared an Urban Conservation Area
based on their modern settlement characteristics in 2017,
plan decisions such as the connection roads proposed to
pass between neighborhood units and "special construction
conditions" continued to change the existing urban
characteristics. erefore, it can be said that potential traces
of cultural heritage from the 18th century are also under
threat of destruction, as are the modern neighborhood
heritage elements, which have been visible since 1950.
Based on this issue, the primary objective of the research was to
identify, document, and record the surviving building traces
of Levent Farm and Barracks to increase their visibility. It is
also aimed to determine how urban layers shape each other
by revealing the spatial interaction of modern architectural
heritage with these potential archaeological sites in Levent,
starting from the 18th century.
METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS
e methodological approach is based on the historical
landscape approach (UNESCO, 2012) to dene the
overlapping of dierent layers of urban geography over
time through the synthesis of information collected from
archival documents, literature, and cross-referencing of
spatial information from superimposed historical maps,
plans, and projects.
Spatial data were evaluated with a holistic approach in
part-whole interaction by considering inter-scale network
relations in the urban landscape (Favory et al., 2012). In
this approach, as in urban history and urban archaeology
studies aiming to understand the processes of change and
transformation of space, relational evaluations were made
to understand and dene the urban context in the historical
process, including the location of the area within the urban
geography, its functional connections, and the qualities
of the buildings in this context (Butzer, 1980). A holistic
approach is needed to conceptualize how the study area was
established, developed, fragmented, and recongured over
a series of periods. erefore, spatial analyses are elaborated
in relation to each other from the urban scale to spatial
sub-scales to understand change and transformation.
ese analytical approaches reveal not only the knowledge
of a retrospective reading of space, but also clues to the
transmission of memory by recognizing the interactions
and connections between spaces that developed in dierent
periods.
e historical maps, site plans, and aerial photographs
were superimposed on the geographical coordinate system
to provide a platform for mutual spatial evaluations. e
ndings obtained from written archival sources, such as
BOA and Mihrişah Valide Sultan Foundation Records
(hereinaer referred to as MVSV), were cross-examined
with the spatial data. e unique topographical features
of the Bosphorus were considered as important reference
points for correlating dierent large-scale historical thematic
maps and spatializing written documents. Considering
similar characteristics and the current coordinate system,
site plans of housing projects developed in the focus area
between 1950 and 1960 obtained from the archive of
Beşiktaş Municipality and aerial photographs from 1946
and onwards obtained from the General Directorate of
Mapping of the Ministry of National Defense were used to
create a common platform for spatial analysis.
e varying media noted above were superposed on the
current coordinate system by geo-referencing (Benavides &
Koster, 2006). is method can be described as overlapping
the control points determined on maps prepared with
dierent techniques to the common coordinate system using
GIS tools. In urban archaeology studies, superimposing
historical maps through the geo-referencing method is used
for the detection of spatial traces in comparative analyses
(Bitelli et al., 2009). Depending on the nature of each map,
dierent geometric transformation methods can be applied
based on the control points to transform historical maps
with appropriate interpolation and position them on the
current coordinate system (Balletti, 2006).
e concept of in-depth reading is discussed in the
context of drawing technique, prominent geographical
representations, semantic content, theme, and the
relationship of the map with the geopolitical situation of the
period. Among the 23 maps dated between the mid-18th
century and the beginning of the 20th century, repeating
maps were eliminated, and the maps that are the main source
were selected. Geometric transformations were applied for
in-depth reading to ensure the optimum level of alignments
while preserving their semantic content. Each map was
associated with the current coordinate plane based on the
north direction, and at least three control points were kept
constant by overlapping them to the coordinate system, and
basic geometric transformations (trilateration and warping
on the grid plane) were applied to ensure a minimum level
of surface deformation.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
419
HOLISTIC EVALUATION PROCESS
e discussion of the urban context in which the Levent Farm
and Barracks interact is analyzed at three complementary
scales to dene the historical urban landscape as follows
(Figure 1):
• Urban Area: Location within the urban structure
through historical maps.
• Immediate Vicinity: Interactions with the immediate
vicinity and denition of character zones.
• Focus Study Area: Structural elements and traces of the
compound.
Figure 1. ree complementary scales for Levent Farm and Barracks to dene its place in the historical urban context:
Urban area, immediate vicinity and focus study area. (e maps were developed by the author using topographic maps
obtained from the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality database).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
420
Urban Area: Location Within the Urban Structure
rough Historical Maps
Four historical maps were selected to discuss the location of
Levent Farm and Barracks within the spatial networks at the
urban scale and its relationship with the city center. ese maps
stand out in terms of the number and representational quality
of the control points and provide detailed spatial information
for in-depth reading with reference to written sources.
From the beginning of the 18 century until the
establishment of the Barracks in 1794, maps emphasized
the strategic importance of the Bosphorus and showed
the natural harbors and water resources. In this context,
the map of Andelnger (1703) is an important document
that reveals the strategic value of the Bosphorus for the
city center, which is also considered the rst map that
expresses the location of the farm before the Barracks and
its relationship with other central nodes.
Guillaume Antoine Olivier's map (Olivier, (1801) stands
out with its details describing the geological features of the
Bosphorus (Lom et al., 2016). Levent Farm and Barracks is
located within a strong transportation network with other
military nodes built during the New Order and the city
center (Şenyurt, 2016). Olivier's map provides information
to support these evaluations. e farm, indicated on the
map as the last central node in the north, is connected to
Pera by land. From there, it reaches the Golden Horn shore
where the shipyard is located via Okmeydanı and connects
to Divanhâne, the military headquarters, and the armory
in Kasımpaşa. Considering that the Kalyoncu Barracks and
Mühendishâne, the Engineering School, where modern
techniques were taught, are also located in Kasımpaşa,
the importance of the Barracks' connection with military
centers for the defense of the city is emphasized.
François Kauer, who served the Ottoman Empire during the
New Order movement, produced maps in accordance with
the modern standards of the period by using new techniques
and tools in terms of cartography (Pedley, 2012). e map
(Kauer, 1819), published aer his death, was improved by
Barbié du Bocage's additions, providing a comprehensive
description of the entire Bosphorus shortly aer the Janissary
revolt (Pedley, 2012). e "Great Levent Farm," dened on
this map, consists of dierent building clusters between
the Baltalimanı Valley and Büyükdere Road. It is located
on a plateau between two branches of the riverbed without
any structural boundaries. e fact that the "Great Levent
Farm" is connected to the "Cargo Port" on the shore of the
Bosphorus via the road running parallel to the Baltalimanı
River reveals its important relationship to the sea.
Despite Kauer's detailed illustration, Franz Fried's map of
Istanbul (Fried, 1821) illustrates the settlement as a single
structure. It emphasizes the strong connection of the road
passing through the Barracks with Baltalimanı and the
Büyükdere Road and presents a connection of the Barracks
with Kağıthane, where one of the important military nodes
is located.
Helmuth Moltke’s map (Moltke, 1849) provides detailed
information on the identication of geographic references
in comparison with contemporary maps. e expression
"Ruins of Great Levent Farm Barracks" on this map
describes the period 40 years aer the Janissary revolt,
indicating the buildings were abandoned. Unlike the
Kauer Map, the functions or names of the buildings are
not noted, but the location of the two barracks and the
Sultan Pavilion are indicated in a way that corresponds to
their current locations.
e maps above and the records describing the characteristics
of Levent Farm and Barracks demonstrate the central role
and strategic position of the settlement complex in the
defense of the Bosphorus line. In the late 18th century, with
the allocation of Levent Farm and its immediate vicinity to
Cezayirli Hasan Paşa, Levent Farm and Barracks became
an important point of attraction for the central military
hub in Kasımpaşa. Connections with the Shipyard and
the Engineering School in Kasımpaşa reveal its strong
relationship with the political, administrative, technological,
and cultural breakthroughs of the New Order period in the
urban context. In addition to strong road connections to the
city center, there was also a strong connection by sea to the
central port at Tophane, indicating that Baltalimanı was used
as the port of this settlement. Considering the transportation
networks and the echelon of functions within the urban
geography, Levent Farm and Barracks was an important
settlement in proximity to the center.
From the 19 century to the mid-20th century, there was
no large-scale development in the region, and except for
the old settlements along the Bosphorus coastline, the
boundaries of the existing city did not yet reach Levent on
the upper levels. As described in the historical background
section, the Levent Region has developed and become
a center of attraction since the 1950s with new housing
policies, the development of nearby industrial areas, and
new transportation plans.
Interaction with the Immediate Vicinity and Character
Zones
e immediate vicinity of the study area was analyzed by
dividing it into character zones, as the widespread settlement
and unbounded structural form of Levent Farm and Barracks
make it dicult to identify potential archaeological sites and
building traces. e term "character zone" is used in urban
morphological studies to describe the unique regions that
result from the interaction of building, street, and property
fabric with the surrounding physical environment and
topography (Larkham & Morton, 2011). As a contribution to
this background, and with reference to characteristics of place
dened at general assemblies of the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS, 1987; ICOMOS, 2011), the
term "Potential Character Zones," as used in this paper, refers
to areas of potential archaeological value as well as clusters
of interrelated groups of building traces and natural features
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
421
under pressure from rapid urbanization.
rough the evaluation of the research project outputs,
four potential character zones were identied that dene
the possible locations of structural traces within 500
meters of the focus study area and their relationship with
the existing urban structure (Figure 2). Nodes such as the
water reservoir in Kanlıkavak Farm and Baltalimanı harbor
are not evaluated in this study as they dene the peripheral
h zone.
• Character Zone 1 is the plateau where the new and
old barracks, two hospitals, mosques, baths, kitchens,
shops, stables, arsenal, fountains, water reservoirs,
ponds, training grounds, squares, roads, and the Sultan
Pavilion identied in archival documents from the early
19 century (BOA, 1800; BOA, 1803) overlap with the
clusters of buildings indicated on historical maps.
• Character Zone 2 can be considered a natural boundary
surrounding Zone 1. In addition to the riverbeds,
gardens, and agricultural areas, the roads connecting
the plateau to the city center and the bridges that serve
as gateways were in this threshold area.
Figure 2. Structural traces according to historical maps referencing the character zones and topographical features within
the existing urban structure.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
422
• Character Zone 3 is dened as the improvement area
where new functions were added over time, including
agricultural elds, farm buildings, infrastructures such
as sewage drains and clean water ducts, and defense
structures in fragmented sub-areas.
• Character Zone 4 consists of natural corridors that
provide connections and passages between built-up
areas within the fragmented identity zones. It includes
bridges and water supply structures following historical
waterways and riverbeds.
Focus Study Area and Denition of Spatial Traces
e focus study area is the central cluster of building traces
within Character Zone 1 selected for the exploratory eld
survey. is area is located within the boundaries of the
Konaklar Neighborhood of Beşiktaş District and has been
subjected to residential development since 1957.
At this stage, detailed maps, plans, and aerial photographs
conveying building-scale information were added to the
GIS environment, creating a prediction map showing the
focus study area for exploratory eld surveys. In addition
to the spatial data located in the coordinate system, the
gravure from Mahmut Raif Efendi’s book dated 1798
(Beydilli & Şahin, 2001) and the drawing titled “e Plan
Showing the Boundaries of the Area Around Baltalimanı
and Kanlıkavak” dated 1873 (BOA, 1873) provide
important spatial clues. While the gravure describes the
building composition of Levent Farm and Barracks during
the period when it was in active use, the 1873 plan, which
presents the abandonment of the settlement, shows the
prestige buildings and their descriptions on a central axis
and pattern of central buildings (Figure 3).
Aerial photographs reveal that all the buildings associated
with Levent Farm and Barracks in the focus study area were
Figure 3. Spatial change 1798-1966.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
423
abandoned, in ruins, with only a few structural traces legible
(Figure 3). e aerial photographs present the trace of two
large rectangular buildings with courtyards and a cluster of
building traces to the west. ese traces complement each
other when evaluated together with the traces of a group of
buildings lined up on the central axis, which is also coherent
with the 1873 plan. e location of the rectangular building
traces and other structural clusters can be determined
within the coordinate system, and necessary connections
can also be made with reference to the Sultan Pavilion
and the riverbeds, as their locations are known today. e
photograph shows that the central buildings, whose exact
location is not specied in the written sources, are located
to the west of the rectangular building traces corresponding
to the Barracks.
rough the superimposition of the spatial information and
synthesis of ndings described above, a prediction map was
developed to locate potential central structures and identify
their interaction with the existing urban pattern (Figure 4).
As a result of the comparative analysis of the ndings of
the past periods with the current maps, it was revealed that
four building traces in the present structural context could
be identied on the prediction map, and the exploratory
eldwork phase was initiated. In this way, the conceptual
framework for the location of the potential single structures
to be identied was determined by establishing their
relationship with the urban context.
e Building Trace 1: Bathhouse (Hamam) of Levent
Barracks
e Building Trace 1 (B1 in Figure 4 and 5) is located
between the proposed Barracks and the clustered building
traces. Today, it is in the public area and is located 40 meters
south of the road covering the branch of the riverbed visible
in the 1946 aerial photograph.
A part of the arced wall element above the soil surface was
observed during the exploratory eld survey (Figure 6).
e building with a dome and skylight shown in the gravure
dated 1798, located between the riverbed and the Barracks,
is a bathhouse. is building also corresponds with the
remains of the square-shaped building presented in the site
plan of the 1 Army Members Housing Project dated 1963
(Figure 7).
It is notable that Mihrişah Sultan, the mother of Selim
III, supported the construction of mosques, bathhouses,
and fountains, especially for the newly developed
military complexes (Uğurlu, 2016). Detailed information
about the Bathhouse of Levent Barracks is obtained from
the foundation records established by Mihrişah Sultan.
The records dated July 1795 indicate that the building
consisted of 2 small rooms (halvet), 3 large rooms (sofa),
a passage (dehliz), an entrance hall (camekân), a staff
room (tellak room), stables, and various storerooms,
and its surface area was approximately 500 square
meters (Kala & Akarçeşme, 2019). This dimension
approximately corresponds to the area of the identified
building trace.
e information about the bathhouse in the written
sources and the location determined on the prediction map
corresponds to the remains of the building observed during
the exploratory eld survey. erefore, the arched wall
element of B1 located on the prediction map is considered
to belong to the Levent Farm and Barracks Bathhouse.
e Building Trace 2: Barracks Embankment Wall
e Building Trace 2 (B2 in Figure 4 and 8) is located
northwest of the central cluster of buildings. e part
observed on the surface belongs to an embankment wall,
approximately 4 meters high and 25 meters long. is stone
masonry wall is located along the northern edge of the
Barracks traces close to the riverbed. At present, the wall is
within the public area. However, the trace of the Barracks,
of which this wall was a part, is now covered with housing
blocks (Figure 9).
Figure 4. Prediction Map. Location of potential structures
and building traces.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
424
e perimeter of the Old Barracks (Atîk), dating back to
1797, is approximately 230 meters long and 13.5 meters
wide (BOA, 1797). e BOA document dated 1803
mentions both the Old and New (Cedid) Barracks. e
perimeter length of the New Barracks, related to the roof
repair, is approximately 238 meters, and its width is 12
meters. is document also mentions the construction of
a masonry embankment wall on the riverside to support
the New Barracks built on a slope (BOA, 1803). is
statement suggests that the rectangular building closer
to Kanlıdere, which appears to the north of the site in
the aerial photographs, is the New Barracks remains. In
addition, the dimensions of the traces of the rectangular
building, which can be seen close to the riverbed in the
1946 aerial photograph, correspond to the dimensions
of the New Barracks described in BOA documents dated
1803.
Figure 5. Location of the Building Trace 1 (B1).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
425
e Building Trace 3: Great Dam Wall in Front of the
Sultan Pavilion, Bend-i Kebir
Based on the prediction map, the location of the
Building Trace 3 (B3 in Figure 4 and 10) lies between
the neighborhood road passing in front of the Pavilion
and the highway connection. Although not recognized
as part of Levent Farm and Barracks, the only registered
cultural heritage in the focal study area is the Sultan
Pavilion.
e 1873 Plan shows a road connecting the settlement
complex to the city center. e Sultan Pavilion is located at
the end of this linear road axis, which oers a ceremonial
route, and the name Bend-i Kebir is indicated next to the
building symbol in front of the Pavilion (Figure 11).
"Kebir" in Turkish refers to "Great," and the term "Bend"
is used to describe retaining walls built to collect water.
erefore, from this expression, which can be translated as
"Great Dam," it is expected that the structure supported the
Figure 6. Arched wall element observed during the exploratory led survey.
Figure 7. Gravure dated 1798 (Le). e Building Trace 1 in the Site Plan of the 1 Army Members Housing Project dated
1963 (Right).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
426
platform built on the sloping land in front of the Pavilion
overlooking the view and that a water element such as a
pond was located on it. e corresponding information
for Building Trace 3 was also found in the records of the
Mihrişah Valide Sultan Foundation archive. e archive
document D.1452 p. 28b–29a denes the 9-hectare area
where the Pavilion is located as agricultural land and a large
garden. ere was a pond and a kitchen in this area, together
with the Pavilion (Kala & Akarçeşme, 2019). BOA records
dated 1803, which provide information on the maintenance
of the central buildings, mention the Havuz-ı Kebir (Great
Pond) in this area and the retaining wall in front of it.
When the 1946 aerial photograph is analyzed, traces of a
structure built perpendicular to the slope can be seen on the
entrance axis of the Pavilion. It is approximately 15 meters and
parallel to the slope with a length of 22 meters (Figure 11).
Figure 8. Location of the Building Trace 2 (B2).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
427
Based on the above-mentioned ndings, it is considered
that Building Trace 3 was built on the sloping terrain in
front of the Pavilion, supporting a platform overlooking the
landscape, and that there was potentially a pond on it.
e exploratory eld surveys revealed two groups of wall
remains on the sloping terrain at the entrance axis of the
Pavilion, corresponding to B3 (Figure 12). It was also
observed that the structure in question was damaged and
partially covered with soil ll due to the highway connection
road completed in 1988 and the neighborhood road passing
in front of the Pavilion.
e Building Trace 4: Potentially a Service or Storage
Structure
e location of Building Trace 4 (B4 in Figure 4 and 13)
was identied on the prediction map and on the same
sloping terrain in a park approximately 120 meters from
B3. e 1946 aerial photograph shows that the building is
approximately 12 meters by 6 meters (Figure 13).
B4 is one of the structures on the linear axis extending
from the entrance of Levent Farm to the Pavilion and
is visible in the 1946 aerial photograph. e aerial
photograph shows that the northern part of the building,
leaning on the upper level of the land, is covered with soil
Figure 9. e embarkment wall detected during the exploratory eld survey.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
428
and partially buried. No detailed information matching
this building was found in written sources. On the other
hand, it is expected that the linear axis extending from the
entrance gate of the Farm to the Pavilion was used during
the visits of the Sultan and members of the dynasty to
the Barracks (Uğurlu, 2016). ere are ponds, vineyards,
and gardens in this area, therefore it is considered to be
a prestige axis. For this reason, there is a perception that
the building in question is a service or storage structure
associated with this axis.
B4 is preserved and has been repaired and re-functioned
but not recognized as a cultural asset. e 10-meter-
long entrance façade facing southeast and located on the
opposite side of the road is exposed from the soil surface,
while the rear façade below the road level is buried.
Figure 10. Location of the Building Trace 3 (B3).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
429
Although it was observed that the façade of the building has
been renovated with recent materials and the roof cover has
been added, the building preserves its structural qualities.
Today, it is used as a social center and workshop by the local
municipality (Figure 14).
FINDING AND CONCLUSION
e Levent Neighborhoods, developed in the early 1950s,
were important for oering living spaces suitable for
the modern lifestyle of the period, compared to the city
center of Istanbul, which was inadequate for the rapidly
growing population and the need for contemporary
housing units. From the point of view of the historic
landscape, the construction of these new neighborhoods
can be considered to have mitigated the pressure of urban
renewal based on demolition and reconstruction, and
thus the destruction of the central area. Contrary to this
approach from a dialectical point of view, in the 1950s
and 60s, when Levent Farm and Barracks were not yet
accepted as part of the holistic cultural landscape, and its
location and impact area had not yet been determined, the
construction of projects representing the modern period
brought about a new spatial destruction, and thus traces
of the 18th-century cultural landscape were lost. Despite
these contradictory situations, this research determined
that there is still potential for the traces of the 18-
century settlement to be revealed in open public spaces,
and that the continuity of urban memory can be ensured
by evaluating them within the current urban fabric. is
situation gives important clues for the evaluation of
modern-period tangible urban heritage values and the
18-century settlement layer together in planning and
design processes.
e challenge to utilizing this high potential lies in the
fact that these traces of cultural heritage are not yet
addressed in the current development plan (Figure 15).
In addition, infrastructure projects such as highway
connections and urban transformation implementations
with more extensive reconstruction conditions introduce
signicant risks. Among these risks, allowing basement
oors that cover the entire parcel area threatens the traces
of cultural heritage potential within private properties.
For this reason, there is a need to protect potential cultural
values by adding temporary provisions to the existing
development plan and to make comprehensive regulations
as soon as possible.
Through this research, a prediction map covering
the focus study area was produced in relation to the
urban context, and the findings superimposed through
different media were transferred holistically to the
building scale. The building traces indicated on the
Figure 11. Location of Bend-i Kebir.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
430
prediction map were confirmed during the exploratory
field surveys, and four building traces were determined
to be within the context of Levent Farm and Barracks.
Thus, the necessary database was created for the official
submission for registration of these traces as tangible
cultural values.
As a result of the submitted proposal in May 2023, four
building traces identified within the historical and spatial
context described in the article were evaluated by the
Istanbul Regional Board for the Protection of Cultural
Assets. In August 2023, upon the Board's assessment,
these four building traces were identified as part of the
Levent Farm and Barracks and registered as Grade 2
tangible cultural assets (Turkish Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, 2023). The registration of these four buildings
as cultural assets, with reference to the findings
presented in this paper, has revealed the existence of an
urban archaeological layer belonging to the late 18th-
century Levent Farm and Barracks settlement complex.
Revealing the interaction of this urban layer with the
modern layer that developed between the 1950s and mid-
1970s increases the current value of the building traces.
Considering the rapid urban change and transformation
in the region today, the dynamic structure of Istanbul,
and the vibrant urban life, the issue of how the different
layers of urban heritage can be carried into the future
in interaction with each other gains importance. It is
necessary to define policies and administrative and
management decisions that will support planning and
design tools to preserve and transmit historical heritage
values. Research findings can guide and constitute
data for new studies to be developed in the fields of
urban archaeology and history, urban design, and
planning. Therefore, the identification of this potential
Figure 12. e traces of walls detected during the exploratory eld survey.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
431
Figure 13. Location of the Building Trace 4 (B4).
Figure 14. e existing structure of B4.
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
432
archaeological layer is important not only for the spatial
identity of the Levent Region, but also for providing a
new perspective on the spatial development of Istanbul
in the context of historical geography.
ETHICS: ere are no ethical issues with the publication of
this manuscript.
PEER-REVIEW: Externally peer-reviewed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: e authors declared no po-
tential conicts of interest with respect to the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: e authors declared that
this study has received no nancial support.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: is article presents the nd-
ings of the eld surveys carried out by the author between
2022 and 2023 as a continuation of the research project
number 2021-07 of Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University,
which was completed in 2022.
REFERENCES
Ahmet Fâiz Efendi. (1993). Rûznâme (S. V. Arıkan, Ed.).
Turkish History Institution Publication [Original
work published, 1807].
Andelnger, J. J. (1703). Plan de Constantinople, de son
port, canal et environs [Map]. Aug. Vindel: I. F.
Leopold Exc. Gallica the digital library of the Bib-
liothèque nationale de France. https://gallica.
bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8444112z.r=Andelfin-
ger?rk=42918;4
Arû, K. A. (1956). 4. Levent Mahallesi. Arkitekt, 3(285),
140–153.
Arû, K. A. (1992). Anılarda Mimarlık. Yapı, 127, 45–46.
Balletti, C. (2006). Georeference in the analysis of the geo-
metric content of early maps. E-Perimetron, 1(1),
32–39.
Benavides, J., & Koster, E. (2006). Identifying surviving
landmarks on historical maps. E-Perimetron, 1(3),
194–208.
Beydilli, K. (1995). Türk Bilim ve Matbaacılık Tarihin-
de Mühendishâne, Mühendishâne Matbaası ve
Kütüphanesi (1176–1826). Eren Yayıncılık.
Beydilli, K., & Şahin, I. (2001). Mahmud Raîf Efendi ve
Nizam-ı Cedid’e Dâir Eseri (1798). Turkish History
Institution Publication.
Bilsel, F. C. (2010). Henri Prost’s working Istanbul 1936–
1951: Transforming the structure of a city through
master plans and urban operations. In F. C. Bilsel &
P. Pinon (Eds.), From e Imperial Capital to e
Republican Modern City: Henri Prost’s planning of
Istanbul 1936–1951 (pp. 101–165). Suna and İnan
Kıraç Foundation Istanbul Research Institute.
Bitelli, G., Cremonini, S., & Gatta, G. (2009). Ancient map
comparisons and georeferencing techniques: A case
study from the Po River Delta (Italy). E-Perimetron,
4(4), 221–233.
Birik, M. (2022). Tarihi haritalar üzerinden kayıp kentsel
mekânın izini sürmek: Levent Çiliği ve Kışlası’nın
18. ve 20. yüzyıllar arasında kentsel bağlamla etkileşi-
minin belirlenmesi. Tasarım Kuram, 18(37). 70-79.
https://doi.org/10.14744/tasarimkuram.2022.04934
Birik, M., Aksoyak, Ö.D. ve Çalışkan, Ö. (2022). Açık geçir-
gen mahalle kavramı ve Levent Bölgesi’nde açık
geçirgen mahalle sisteminin geliştirilmesine yöne-
lik tasarım kriterlerinin tanımlanması. Planlama,
32(2), 280-297.
BOA. (1797, May 20). Cevdet Askeriye (C.AS.), 964/41956.
Istanbul: Turkish Republic Presidency State Ar-
chives, Ottoman Archives.
BOA. (1800, December 2). Bâb-ı Deerî Başmuhasebe Bina
Eminliği, 6834. Istanbul: Turkish Republic Presiden-
cy State Archives, Ottoman Archives.
BOA. (1803, May 17). Bâb-ı Deerî Başmuhasebe Bina
Eminliği, 7102. Istanbul: Turkish Republic Presiden-
Figure 15. Potential location of spatial layer of Levent Farm
and Barracks in the actual urban development plan (Bos-
phorus Urban Development Plan dated 10.12.1993).
Megaron, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 416–433, September 2024
433
cy State Archives, Ottoman Archives.
BOA. (1805, February 14). Cevdet Askeriye (C.AS.),
187/8095. Istanbul: Turkish Republic Presidency
State Archives, Ottoman Archives.
BOA. (1873, February 2). Plan, Proje ve Krokiler (PLK.p.),
no. 121. Istanbul: Turkish Republic Presidency State
Archives, Ottoman Archives.
Butzer, K. W. (1980). Context in archaeology: An alterna-
tive perspective. J Field Archaeol, 7(4), 417–422.
Dinçer, İ. (2011). e impact of neoliberal policies on his-
toric urban space: Areas of urban renewal in Istan-
bul. Int Plan Stud, 16(1), 43–60.
Favory, F., Nuninger, L., & Sanders, L. (2012). Intégration
de concepts de géographie et d’archéologie spatiale
pour l’étude des systèmes de peuplement. L’Espace
Géogr., 41(4), 295–309.
Fried, F. (1821). Plan de Constantinople: du Bosphore &
du Canal de la Mer Noire. Harvard Map Collection,
Harvard University.
ICOMOS. (1987). Charter for the conservation of historic
towns and urban areas. General Assembly, Wash-
ington DC. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOC-
UMENTS/Charters/towns_e.pdf
ICOMOS. (2011). e Valletta principles for the safe-
guarding and management of historic cities, towns
and urban areas. 17th General Assembly, Par-
is, France. https://civvih.icomos.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/03/Valletta-Principles-GA-_EN_
FR_28_11_2011.pdf
Kala, E. S., & Akarçeşme, İ. (2019). Bölüm 3.22. Ticare-
thane / Hamam. In M. Kurtoğlu (Ed.), Mihrişah
Valide Sultan Vakfı (pp. 99–100). Vakıar Genel
Müdürlüğü.
Karabey, H. (2011). Planlanıp gerçekleştirilmesinden 60 yıl
sonra, değişen koşullar ve kullanıcı talepleri doğrul-
tusunda Levent Mahallesi’nin geleceği. Mimarist,
39, 61–66.
Kauer, F. (1819). Plan topographique du Bosphore, de
race ou Canal de Constantinople et de ses envi-
rons [Map]. Gallica the digital library of the Biblio-
thèque nationale de France. https://gallica.bnf.fr/
ark:/12148/btv1b10100957j
Larkham, P. J., & Morton, N. (2011). Drawing lines on
maps: Morphological regions and planning practic-
es. Urban Morphol, 15(2), 133–151.
Lom, N., Ülgen, S. C., Sakinç, M., & Şengör, A. M. C. (2016).
Geology and stratigraphy of Istanbul region. Geodi-
versitas, 38(2), 175–195.
Moltke, H. (1849). Karte des nördlichen befestigten eils
des Bosphorus: von den Hissaren bis zu den Leucht-
thürmen am Schwarzen Meer: im Aurage Sr. Ho-
heit Sultan Mahmud II mit dem Messtisch. Harvard
Map Collection, Harvard Library. https://hgl.har-
vard.edu/catalog/harvard-g7432-b6-1849-m6
Olivier, G. A. (1801). Bosphore de race ou Canal de la
Mer Noire [Map]. In Atlas pour servir au Voyage
dans Empire Othoman, L'egypte Et La Perse. H.
Agasse.
Pedley, M. (2012). Enlightenment cartography at the Sub-
lime Porte: François Kauer and the survey of Con-
stantinople. J Ottoman Stud, 39, 28–53.
Shaw, S. J., & Ezel, K. S. (2002). History of the Ottoman Em-
pire and modern Turkey: Reform, revolution and re-
public. Rise of modern Turkey (Vol. 2, 1808–1975).
e Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge.
Şenyurt, O. (2016). Arşiv belgeleri işığında III. Selim’in ask-
erî alandaki kararlarının İstanbul’da kent mekânının
kullanımına etkileri. Bilig, 78, 199–229.
Tekeli, İ. (1998). Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet döneminde kentsel
gelişme ve kent planlaması. In Y. Sey (Ed.), 75 yılda
değişen kent ve mimarlık (pp. 1–24). Tarih Vakfı.
Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2023). Board no.
3, Report no. 8431, no. 8432, no. 8433, no. 8434. Is-
tanbul Regional Board for the Protection of Cultural
Assets.
Uğurlu, H. (2016). Siyâsî bir projenin izinde bânilik:
Mihrişah Vâlide Sultan’ın îmar faaliyetlerini yeniden
okumak. Belleten, 80(287), 85–101.
UNESCO. (2012). Recommendation on the historic ur-
ban landscape, including a glossary of denitions
(Report No. 36). https://www.unesco.org/en/le-
gal-affairs/recommendation-historic-urban-land-
scape-including-glossary-denitions#item-0
