İstanbul..The city that is discovered as you live and falls in love with as you discover

İSTANBUL

Throughout its long and complex history, Istanbul has been the home of different civilizations, sometimes It became its center and sometimes entered its orbit. Thus, those civilizations urbanization concepts that are not similar to each other were effective in the formation of Istanbul. Traces of these can now be seen in the fabric of the city.The length of this history and the important place of Istanbul throughout this long history.Its existence as a center is closely related to the geographical location of the city.

It is relevant. The Bosphorus is a waterway connecting two seas, and two continents face each other on both banks of the waterway. Such a junction point has commercial, military, etc. It is clear what kind of strategic importance it will have. However, when viewed from this perspective, it can be seen that Çanakkale also has similar features. So why wasn't an important city like Istanbul established on the shores of that Bosphorus? The answer to this question, as Mantran stated, is the Golden Horn. The Golden Horn is a safe harbor in all seasons and all kinds of winds, and in the entire Eastern Mediterranean region, there are only the ports of Thessaloniki and Izmir that can compete with it in terms of security. They also do not have the intersection feature in Istanbul. Thus, it can be said that nature and geography have already decided that Istanbul will be an important city. However, from its initial founding until the historic decision of Constantine the Great, this potential was not exploited to its best advantage. This is largely due to the weakness of technology. The Bosphorus had been used since the early stages of shipping, but this traffic was not yet sufficient for a "big" city by the standards we know. Approximately 800 years after the legendary Byzas of Megara, in 196 AD, Roman Emperor Septimius Severus captured the city and burned it as punishment for resisting him, and had its walls demolished. But the fact that he built the walls again a year later can be considered a sign that he understood the importance of the city.

Roman Capital

It was Constantine who consciously made the decision to make Istanbul a historical world center. The solution found by the emperor in the face of various problems of the Roman Empire was to administratively divide it into two; In this case, it was necessary to create a great capital equivalent to Rome for the part that would remain in the east. Historians say that Constantine first thought of Troy. Troy was the hero of the greatest epics of the classical age, such as the Iliad, but has been in ruins ever since. It is seen that Constantine quickly turned to a more realistic decision, preferring the future promised by Istanbul over the past represented by Troy. The result of this decision for Istanbul was interesting in this respect: The city became a planned city. It was built as a capital city. Constantine also He is the emperor who decided that Rome should become Christian, or at least allow this religion. However, the construction of the city took place within the framework of classical Greco-Roman urbanism understanding and tradition. It is a typical feature of this transition phase that the statue of Constantine placed on Çemberlitaş depicts him as Apollo. He developed broad, colonnaded streets in the Greco-Latin style. In this model, called “grid” or “chessboard”, streets and avenues would go as straight as possible and intersect each other at right angles. Large squares were opened and intersections were formed where necessary on these streets. Symmetry was an important principle. Magnificence and monumentality were also important for a capital city. The social needs of free citizens had to be met. This symmetry, the straightness of the streets, the physical He was creating a "transparent" urban structure, which was similar to the Greek-Latin culture.It was in line with the "publicity" element. The city developed in a short time in accordance with these principles and Constantine's He proved that he made the right choice. Less than two centuries later, the walls between Unkapanı and Yenikapı became narrow and II. Theodosius had the new walls we see today built.

Byzantium

It is not easy to say when Rome became "Byzantine". Byzantines identified themselves as Romans. This distinction is a distinction drawn by 19th century historians. It is felt that there is a difference, that after a certain time Eastern Rome or Byzantium becomes less like Western Rome or, more precisely, ancient Rome before the separation, but it is difficult to decide when the transition began or ended – perhaps from the very beginning. there was distinction. Of course, “what was the distinction?” It is necessary to find a more definitive answer to the question. The main features that come to our mind when we say "Rome" were formed in the age of paganism; Byzantium is a devoutly Christian empire. But Christianity was already present at the founding of Eastern Rome. Therefore, religion should not be the primary distinction. The problem perhaps is that there was an autonomous noble class in Western Rome. Always Although they were not politically dominant, they were decisive. In Byzantium, however, there was no noble class autonomous from the state - like the later Ottomans. My subjective interpretation is that this change did not manifest itself until the end of the 5th century.is what it shows. My only basis is that Justinian attempted to re-establish Rome in the 6th century. Attempts to “reconstruct” are always the result of the awareness that something has been lost! Justinian's efforts brought Christianity together with the Greco-Latin tradition in a brilliant way combined in a way. The greatest monuments of Christianity, especially Hagia Sophia, rose within the fabric of a classical world city in Istanbul. This is interesting because the Christian cities of the Middle Ages were ancient cities from China to Rome.Instead of the grid planned city that civilizations have always adopted, they preferred a city structure with crooked streets, as in Islam.But in the following centuries, Byzantium was constantly worn out and weakened. 1204 Latin It collapsed completely with the invasion. When the Turks conquered the city, it was half ruined and its population was fifty.It was down to a thousand. The dominant building material in Roman and Byzantine housing is stone. But also stone It is the most expensive material. Therefore, a technique was found to arrange stones and bricks in rows and produce an additional aesthetic effect. However, when the Ottomans entered the city, they found a city in deplorable ruin.

Ottomans

During the Ottoman period, the city changed in a short time and acquired a different character. Turks came from a nomadic tradition; rural habits predominated. As a result, nature entered the city again. Except for a few exceptional districts where the population was most concentrated, all houses had gardens. The need for greenery, which is met with parks in modern cities, was met with gardens in Istanbul. Additionally, until recent times, there were vegetable, fruit gardens and orchards inside as well as outside the city walls. The type of wooden housing that gave the city its distinctive character until the middle of this century also began in these earliest periods. There were various reasons for the choice of wood: fear of earthquakes, rural habit or Islam's "mortal world" ideology. But the main reason was economic. Wood was cheap and construction was easy. In addition, the wooden house was compatible with the climate of the city. On the other hand, its important drawback, as is known, was its lack of resistance to fire. Indeed, fire has been a constant disaster in Istanbul for centuries. We can consider Ottoman structuring in two main categories: public andspecial. The distinction between these two is different in the Ottoman Empire than in the Roman-Byzantine Empire. It was bigger. The Ottomans did not destroy the city they captured, nor did they destroy its structure consciously or purposefully. They converted churches into mosques and continued and completed the Byzantine policy of erecting monumental buildings on hills. A clear example of the category I call “public” is “social complex”. These types of buildings are built by the sultan, the viziers and their families, that is, the palace, the viziers and other entities. The purpose and reason for existence of the social complex is public benefit. It is a charity work.
It was bigger. The Ottomans did not destroy the city they captured, nor did they destroy its structure consciously or purposefully. They converted churches into mosques and continued and completed the Byzantine policy of erecting monumental buildings on hills. A clear example of the category I call “public” is “social complex”. These types of buildings are built by the sultan, the viziers and their families, that is, the palace, the viziers and other entities. The purpose and reason for existence of the social complex is public benefit. It is a charity work. Its functions increase and diversify depending on the wealth of the person who built it. The social complex is a building type that closes rather than opens to the rest of the city. There is usually a mosque in the center. Madrasahs, hospitals, complexes Whatever their buildings are, they position themselves in relation to the mosque in the center, facing it (of course, this means turning their backs to the city). Of course, the mosque represents religion and God. But also, on a mundane and physical level, the one who made it happen. In this respect, the social complex seems to present itself to the inspection of this "benefactor" who will stand in the middle and look at it. Apart from this relatively symmetrical and geometric integrity created by the social complex, there is chaos in the city. There straight lines are distorted; It curves or zigzags. Houses lean against each other. Bay windows extend into each other, streets become dead ends, etc. In fact, the principles in the social complex are at the core of the neighborhood; but the principle the rate of realization decreases significantly in the neighborhood. Because the people of the neighborhood do not have the money, and therefore the opportunity, to build a social complex. To explain this, it is necessary to take a brief look at what kind of population was formed in the city after the conquest. II. When Mehmet captured the capital of Rome and declared himself Kaiser,He set out to create the population of the great city he designed. of the empire It reproduced its multinational texture in the city. For this reason, Turkish, Greek and Armenian communities from various regions were settled in the city. The sultans who followed him continued the same policy: Bayezit invited the Jews, Yavuz brought skilled craftsmen from Egypt, Suleiman from Serbia. Thus, the newly established neighborhoods were established like the villages of the incoming communities. This is a very different model from the Western European cities, which were founded in the modern era by sharing space primarily on the basis of class, and from the classical (Greco-Roman) tradition in which classes were important. Each neighborhood had rich and poor and many middle-class people. The basis of partnership was ethnic ties (or, in districts like “Çarşamba” or “Aksaray”, old ties of citizenship). Therefore, the neighborhood actually faces a center and its back to the city. He was returning to the rest. But he could not do this in an orderly and geometric manner like the social complex, because he could not afford it. In this sense, the state represents chaos and civil society represents chaos. The center of the neighborhood is a small square. Here, as a rule, the unit There were grocery stores and greengrocers (maybe butchers) that formed the material basis, and coffee houses, which were social spaces. Thus, Ottoman Istanbul developed as a community of villages, in a way. This brought a feature that I will call “matting”. The classical Roman city, with its streets and squares, was built according to the ideal of making the city appear "transparent" from one end to the other. Mediterranean Greece and Rome In their civilization, most of life was spent outdoors. This did not change much during the Ottoman period, but the openness was mostly turned into closed courtyards, etc. moved. The concept of "female privacy" must also have a share in this. Straight lines in the classical age, except for the complexes, became labyrinths (in fact, the Harem, which represents the "private" of the palace, also has a labyrinth quality). The concept of "seclusion" of the Islamic-Ottoman civilization complements "privacy". Between the state and the “private”, there is not much room left for the “public”. When the individual is done with his work "outside", he takes shelter in the privacy of his home and lives there "secluded". During the bright periods of the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul maintained its status as the number one city in the world. Services that could be provided within the technological possibilities of those times were provided. Think of the toilets built by Sinan in the Süleymaniye Complex; and the sewer flowing in the middle of the street in Paris or London in the 16th century.