itüdergisi/a, cilt.8, sa.1, ss.41-53, 2009 (Hakemli Üniversite Dergisi)
Kentler yaşayan varlıklar olup doğar, zaman içerisinde gelişip büyür ve değişirler. Kentler bu sü- reç içerisinde sahip oldukları varlık, kültür ve karakterlerin bir kısmını korur, bir kısmını değiştirir ve bir kısmını da kaybederler. Erzurum kenti, kuruluşu çok eski tarihlere dayanan bir kent olup, doğal süreçlerin bir gereği olarak büyük bir değişim yaşamıştır. Üzerinde kurulan pek çok uygar- lıktan etkilenen, izler ve miraslar barındıran kent, sonunda modernleşen ve kompleksleşen kent an- layışına yenilmiştir. Bu değişimin en büyük ve en çarpıcı örnekleri ise tarihsel nitelikli anıtlar, ge- leneksel konutlar ve mahallelerde görülmektedir. Tarihi kent çekirdeğinin geleneksel mahalle anla- yışı, sokak yapısı, taş evleri ve kentsel donatılarından oluşan yapısının tahrip eden değişimler kül- türel ve sosyal yapıyı da tahrip etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Erzurum kenti’nde zaman içeri- sinde yok olmuş, değişime uğramış ve yok olma tehlikesiyle karşı karşıya olan kültürel mirasın de- ğişimini gözler önüne sermek, bir yıl gibi kısa bir süreç içerisinde yıkımın ne kadar büyük boyutlara ulaştığını vurgulamaktır. Çalışmada Erzurum kenti I. ve III. derecede arkeolojik ve kentsel sit sı- nırları içerisinde ki geleneksel doku değişimleri ortaya konulmak amacı ile 1986 yılı imar planı altlık olarak alınmış ve 2006 ile 2007 yıllarında alan gezilerek ortaya çıkan 1 yıllık değişimler hari- talanmıştır. Sonuç olarak tescilli evlerde herhangi bir yıkımın görülmediği ancak, tescilli olmayan geleneksel evlerin %12’sinin yok olduğu görülmüştür. Mahalle ölçeğinde değerlendirme yapıldı- ğında ise tarihi kent dokusunun yok olarak geleneksel mahalle anlayışının yeni imarlaşmalar ile düzeltilemez hale geldiği belirlenmiştir.
The city of Erzurum is an old settlement, which originates from very old dates and has experienced huge transformations resulting from natural proc- esses. The city, which was affected largely by sev- eral civilisations founded on itself and shelters their traces and heritages even now, was finally beaten by an urbanisation understanding in which modernisa- tion and complexity are dominant features. The best and the clearest examples of this transformation can be seen on the historical-featured monuments, tradi- tional houses and in ancient neighbourhoods and sub-streets. These changes not only destroyed the structures of historical core of the city, which was composed of traditional neighbourhood understand- ing, street structure, stone houses, and urban equipment elements but also cultural and social structure. The aim of the study is to reveal the condi- tions of cultural heritages in Erzurum city, which were destroyed, transformed and faced to extinct in time by focusing how big the extents of devastation are even in a single year. In the study, development plan in 1986 was considered as base map in order to determine the changes in traditional urban tissue inside the boundaries of first and the third degree archaeological sit areas and urban sit areas and one-year changes between 2006 and 2007 were de- termined by field-surveying. It was found that the area whose present conditions were determined in 2006 was largely destroyed compared to develop- ment plan in 1986. In the evaluation conducted in 2006, there existed thirteen houses, which were in use and inventoried as strong enough; three houses, which were not in use but inventoried as strong enough; one house, which was partly destroyed and had inventory while all of twenty-one inventoried houses were fully destroyed. Among the traditional houses, which were not inventoried, twenty-two were determined to be in use and strong enough, seven were not in use but strong enough; sixteen were partly destroyed while thirty-three were fully de- stroyed. It was also determined that mosques, hamams (Turkish baths), cemeteries, tombs (kum- bet), medreseh, fortress and fountains survive, and the number of garden walls reduced only to four.In 2007, field survey was repeated and the counts were updated. Found data were processed on the devel- opment plan again. According to the findings, there
exist thirteen houses in use and inventoried as strong; three houses not in use but inventoried as strong; and one partly destroyed and inventoried. Among the traditional houses which are not invento- ried, twenty – one were found to be in use and strong; six not in use but strong enough; eleven partly destroyed while thirty one were determined to be fully demolished. It was determined again that mosques, hamams (Turkish baths), cemeteries, tombs (kumbet), medreseh, fortress and fountains survive, and the number of garden walls reduced only to four. Consequently, it was found that there was no devastation on the inventoried traditional houses while twelve percent of those not inventoried were fully destroyed. The reason for not changing the number and use conditions of the inventoried houses in this period is that these houses are under absolute conservation status and therefore, they cannot be demolished, changed, and attached with new structures. However, the same conditions are not valid for the houses, which are not inventoried. They can be deliberately demolished, some new structures can be attached with them, and they are not carefully maintained. Huge concrete buildings are constructed in the place of the demolished tradi- tional houses, which were deliberately demolished and destroyed. When considered the historical core of the city of Erzurum on neighbourhood scale, it was found that historical urban tissue and the un- derstanding of traditional neighbourhood disap- peared because of new constructions. These losses in the city are unfortunates of many newly develop- ing cities. In avoidance of this fate, the biggest re- sponsibility is taken by local administrations. Plan- ning maps should be prepared in details. At this stage, economic and social development policies of the city should also be considered. Reconstructions should be avoided in historical urban tissue as pos- sible. Another crucial care is the record of historical urban tissue in inventories However, these recorded data should be preserved not only on the scales of buildings but also include historical urban core, streets and sub-streets with some features such as topography. In the determination of the conservation states, buildings should not be evaluated individu- ally but in combination with urban tissue important to perform interdisciplinary works in the preserva- tion of historical urban core.