Aktüre, Z. 2015. ‘From Greek town to Turkish tourism resort: Kayaköy since early 20th century’, v. 1, pp. 361-70 in REHAB 2015 Porto, edited by R. Amoêda, S. Lira, C. Pinheiro

REHAB 2015

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation

of Historical Buildings and Structures Volume 1

green 1.11 .. 11 lines· .•. institute .

Porto, Portugal 22-24 July

Edited by

Rogerio Amoeda Sergio Lira

Cristina Pinheiro

REHAB 2015 Proceedings of 2nd the International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings and Structures

Edited by Rogerio Amoeda, Sergio Lira & Cristina Pinheiro

© 2015 The Editors and the Authors

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission from the Publisher

ISBN 978-989-8734-07-5 e-ISBN 978-989-8734-10-5

Published by Green Lines Instituto para 0 Desenvolvimento Sustentl'lvel Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development Av Alcaides de Faria, 377 S 12 4750-106 Barcelos, Portugal mail@greenlines-institute org http://www greenlines-institute org

1st edition, July 2015

Published in electronic format

Print on demand

Legal Notice The Editors and the Publisher are not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information

Foreword v

Foreword

REHAB 2015 - 2nd International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and Structures aims to proceed with the discussion on built heritage and the preservation of its legacy, that was established in the first edition of the event. The importance of conservation of historical constructions (built landscape, urban fabrics, buildings, and engineering works) are of utmost importance to preserve the cultural references of a community and was deeply discussed on March 201 4, in Tomar (Portugal).

Under the main topics of discussion, subjects of preservation and rehabilitation methodologies and technologies, as well the importance of the economic and social impacts of preservation practices were covered as the main leading guidelines for the conference debate. Furthermore, different communities ' scales (local, regional national or even worldwide) and authenticity interpretation raise different questions and approaches, and therefore different solutions that are worthily to study, to compare and to experience.

The sustainability approach was again covered, highlighting the importance of the commitment between heritage preservation and technical requirements related to its occupancy and use, such as energy efficiency or materials recovery. Inclusivity was also an important aspect under discussion as public historical sites and buildings need to be adapted to receive different kind of visitors (children, elderly or handicapped persons) and to establish an adequacy with the perceiving of the physical environment and information contents.

As a Special Chapter, Historical Centres were brought into a particular approach highlighting the complexity of their preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation. Historical urban fabrics raise unique problems of preservation and promotion, and have highlighted the needs of specific solutions to be applied.

This second edition of the REHAB conference also gave stage to early stage researchers and students willing to share the results of their research projects, namely post-graduation projects and doctoral projects. REHAB 201 5 received a significant number of such proposals the quality of which was confirmed by the members of the Scientific Committee. This high quality level encourages the organisers to keep on this path and attract young researchers to have the stage and present their work.

VI REHAB 2015

R. Amoeda, S. Lira & C. Pinheiro (eds.)

We would like to express our gratefulness to all the partners and sponsors of REHAB who joined efforts to make it a significant Conference. Our special word or recognition to the Municipality of Porto, to the Youth Foundation (Fundayao da Juventude) and to the Bureau of Tourism of Portugal - Porto and North.

A special word of gratitude to all Members of the Scientific Committee who reviewed the papers and made suggestions that improved the quality of the individual works and the overall quality of the event.

The Editors

Rogerio Amoeda Sergio Lira Cristina Pinheiro

Organizing Committee


Rogerio Amoeda

Sergio Lira

Cristina Pinheiro

Vll

Scientific Committee


Alessandro De Masi Milan Polytechnic II, Italy

Angela Barrios Padura University of Seville, Spain

Artur Feio University Lusiada, Portugal

Ataa Alsalloum University of Damascus, Syria

Austin Parsons Dalhousie University, Canada

Carmine Falasca University "G D'Annunzio" Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Cristina Pinheiro Green Lines Institute, Portugal

Enrico Quagliarini Technical University "delle Marche", Italy

Enrique Torrero Fuentes University Castilla La Mancha, Spain

Esther Hiu Kwan Yung The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

Fernando Branco University Lurio, Mozambique

Francisco Fernandes University Lusiada, Portugal

Gabriella Caterina University of Naples, Italy

Georges A. Tanguay University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada

Gortin Arun Yildiz Technical University, Turkey

Humberto Varum University of Porto, Portugal

J oao Coroado Polytechnic Institute of Tomar, Portugal

Jorge Branco University of Minho, Portugal

Jose Luis Campano Calvo University of Salamanca, Spain

Josep Lluis i Ginovart University Rovira i Virgili, Spain

Juan Garcia-Esparza University Jaume I, Spain

Julio Calvo Serrano University of Granada, Spain

Koenraad Van Cleempoel Hasselt University, Belgium

Maria Cristina Giambruno Polytechnic of Milan, Italy

Marfa Isabel Sard6n de Taboada University Alfonso X El Sabio, Spain

Maria Rosaria Vitale University of Catania, Italy

Mario Mendon<;a de Oliveira Federal University of Bahia, Brazil

Paulo Cruz University of Minho, Portugal

Paulo Louren<;o University ofMinho, Portugal

Petr Kabele Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic

Ricardo Mateus University ofMinho, Portugal

Rogerio Amoeda University Lusiada, Portugal

IX

x

Ron Lovinger University of Oregon, USA

Ruth Liberty-Shalev The Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

Sally Stone Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

Sergio Lira Green Lines Institute, Portugal

Takayoshi Aoki Nagoya City University, Japan

REHAB 2015 R. Amoeda, S. Lira & C. Pinheiro (eds.)

Teresa Ferreira University of Porto, Portugal

Victor Echarri Iribarren University of Alicante, Spain

Vlatka RajciC University of Zagreb, Croatia

Wan-ki Chow The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

Zeynep Akttire Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey

Partners

Partners

Porto.

=~ 1L porto e norte

PORTO VIVO SPcl~<ldt! ijfb~<\'l

fundQ~ao do juventude

I J SD

~ O!porto!

Xl

Contents

Contents

Foreword



Partners

Contents

VOLUMEl

Chapter 1 - Rehabilitation of historical sites, buildings and structures: examples and practices

Seismic vulnerability assessment of Handa Akarenga Building, Handa, Japan o Balal & T Aoki

Sydney Water's Strategic Heritage Asset Management Program (SHAMP) P T Bennett

Xlll

v

VII

ix

xi

XllI

3

11

Urban settlements, rural architectures and conversion of the landscapes of Basilicata during Land 19 Refonn. Documentary research and knowledge about the restoration of the village of Santa Maria d'Irsi

A Bixio,D Verrastro & G Damone

From Casino to historic landmark in 85 years. Ensenada Mexico

C M Calderon Aguilera & C Robles Cairo

Graphic elevation of a cloister in the Cistercian monastery of Valparaiso in Zamora _ Spain

J L Campano Aguirre, J L Campano Calvo, F Gonzalez Alonso, P Carrasco Garcia & A Farfan Martin

29

41

XIV REHAB 2015


The rehabilitation of the Engenho Central (Central Sugarcane Mill) ofPiracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil 49

M E Castore

Territories of discourse: Salford's communities in a changing landscape

A Catalani & P Panas

Pier pressure: best practice in the rehabilitation of British seaside piers

A Chapman

Rehabilitation of farm houses and barns - limits of salt content

H De Clercq & S Godts

Analysis and consolidation of masonry vaults in the restoration of historical constructions

F De Guglielmo, F Ribera & M Angelillo

Anastylosis of a unique ruin at Umm el-Qanatir

Y Dray

59

67

79

89

97

The gothic cathedral as museum: tourism and spatial use at the basilica of Saint-Denis 113

L Dykstra

Process of rehabilitation ofaXIXth century building in the city of Porto. Surveys, monitoring and 131 intervention

T C Ferreira, A Costa, J Silva, J Gon9alves & P Mendes

The complex engineering design challenges of masonry arch bridge rehabilitation

S W Garrity

139

The restoration of wood: application to the paneled ceiling of the exhibition hall of the "Escuelas 151 Menores" of the University of Salamanca

F J Gonzalez Alonso, J L Campano Aguirre & J L Campano Calvo

Traditional Balkan log-houses and sustainable architecture. Preservation of cultural values

A G Kotevski

The application ofnanotextiles in the conservation of the Premonstrate monastery

K Kroftova, M Smidtova & J Witzany

Rio Grande Custom House: a proposal for contemporary administrative spaces

E Kuchpil & A P Santos

Castalia Castle. Architecture and restoration in the 21 st century in Alicante

J A Mira Rico & J R Ortega Perez

157

165

173

185

Seismic improvement of historical dry masonry building using basalt fibre ropes: the case of 195 Lossetti Tower in Beura-Cardezza (Italy)

F Monni, E Quagliarini, S Lenci, P Clini & R Nespeca

Rehabilitation and change: the IBA Emscher Park case

I Peron

Design of roof structures in the rehabilitation process

A Salihbegovic & A Salihbegovic

207

213

Rehabilitation of a unique building in the historical and cultural center of the Spanish capital, "La 223 Antigua Posada del Peine"

B Serrano Perez, M Serrano Perez, R Magro Andrade & M J Retana Maqueda

----- --- ---------

I

Contents

Influence of the wood mechanical properties in the dovetail joint behavior

K Sobra, P Fajman & 1 M Branco

xv

231

Conversion of historic masonry constructions and structural characteristics of walls by intramural 243 reinforcement

N Takiyama, F Matsuno, T Kumagai, N Idate, K Hara & K Kobayashi

Fitting-type joint model for traditional wooden structure

N Takiyama, N Idate & Y Yamada

Keeping the fathers alive: the conservation offuneral architecture in Ugarit

T Teba & D Theodossopoulos

Conservation techniques and valorization strategies for rock-cut architecture

A Versaci & D Indelicato & A Cardaci

Restoration and extension of Baeza Town Hall. Baeza. Andalcia. Spain. 2001-2012

I de Viar

Antoni Gaudi and the Cathedral of Mallorca a hundred years on. Restoration of the restoration

A 1 Villalonga Vidal & M Gambus Saiz

255

263

279

291

301

Strengthening of damaged historic vault structures in the Premonstrate Monastery at Tephi with 311 composites based on high-strength fibres and epoxy resin

J Witzany, T Cejka, K Kroftova & R Zigler

Chapter 2 - Economics and management of historical sites, buildings and structures

Problem issues with using transfer of development rights (TDRs) for built heritage conservation - 323 controversial cases in Hong Kong

1 Hou & E H W Chan

A calculation model of the harmful effects of road traffic in the historic centers of major cities 331

R Magro, M J Retana, A Vento so & M Serrano

Strategies for the rehabilitation of the monumental Cemetery of Bonaria in Cagliari, Italy P Mura

339

Sustaining heritage conservation and community access in Melbourne's most popular cultural 349 attraction: the Former Abbotsford Convent Arts and Cultural precinct

A Smith & M Maguire

Chapter 3 - Tourism and promotion of historical sites, buildings and structures

From Greek town to Turkish tourism resort: Kayakoy since early 20th century Z Aktiire

The touristification ofthe ancient city ofPingyao, between renewal and new problems F Chignier-Riboulon & Cui Can

Heritage and global resources: Draa Valley in Morocco P Raffa

361

371

379

I

XVI REHAB 2015


A replica Roman villa in Egypt: the house of Serenos in the oasis of Dakhla

N Warner

Chapter 4 - Authenticity and built heritage

How to make rehabilitation intersubjective: the "Gesture" tool

P Abreu & P Esteves

389

403

Rejuvenating the urban wet market as an authentic community space. Case study: Pudu Market, 413 lalan Pasar Kuala Lumpur

R Ahmad & MAR Megat Akhbarruddin

Reviving the authentic cultural landscapes of Siamese community. Case study: Kampung Balai, 423 Bachok Kelantan

R Ahmad & M S Ismail

The conservation ofMuro Leccese's olive oil mill: authenticity and rehabilitation

E Brocca & D Besana

The urban center of San Demetrio (Italy): historical analysis after the 2009 earthquake

C A Cacciavillani & C Mazzanti

The Municipal Hall of Crevalcore. Remarks about history as a tool for restoration project

C F Carocci, C Circo, C Manfredi, L A Scuderi & C Tocci

435

445

453

A participatory approach for built heritage preservation. Case study: the Municipality of Sassano, 463 Italy

G Caterina, M R Pinto, S Vio la, A Bianchi, D Diano, T Napolitano, P F Biancamano & A Onesti

Traditional constructions and earthquake in L' Aquila, Abruzzo

S Cecamore

Disturbed heritage now disturbing. The case study of the historical area ofKom ad-Dikka

M Damir

Small-scale architecture of timber in historic gardens

A Drexel & A Eberhart

Degradation by intervention and loss of authenticity in historical centers

C C Falasca

The sugar factory of Pinos Puente. The relentless drive of the Meadow of Granada

G Fernandez Adarve, F ] Lafuente Bolivar & J M Santiago Zaragoza

471

481

491

503

513

Knowledge and dating for preservation of historical and cultural significance of the building: the 523 case study ofthe medieval Castello quarter in Cagliari (XVII-XIX century)

D R Fiorino, C Giannattasio, S M Grillo, V Pintus, M Porcu & M S Schirru

Rome's sampietrini pavements: a material identity to be preserved

F Geremia

Travel in Time. Is it the informal a heritage to be preserved?

E Giani

535

545

Contents

The question of authenticity in preservation of modern architecture

M Hadighi

Authenticity as a sustainable value of holistic conservation

6 Karakul

Casanueva and its "Torre de los ler6nimos". Identity and patrimonial feeling

F J Lafuente Bolivar, G Fernandez Adarve & J M Santiago Zaragoza

JAI TEK: Aibar, Benabarre, Beruete ...

M Mujika & R Villamayor

The maker's authenticity: including the craftsperson when replacing in-kind

A Parsons

The authenticity of architectural heritage: a definition of an evaluation methodology

R Reis & A Alegre

Proof of concept: wrestling with F. L. Wright's historic affordable housing vision

G Snyder & M Jarosz

XVll

555

565

571

581

587

595

605

Building on the Past: exploring the intersections between energy, environment and authenticity 615 through an ethnographic study of renovation

T Yarrow

Index of Authors 625

VOLUME 2

Chapter 5 - Inclusivity of historical sites, buildings and structures

Capturing the realities through digital preservation and scanning techniques: the case of 633 ZouMaTang Ancient Village, China

A Cheshrnehzangi, E Ch'ng & D A Adkins

Discussing inclusivity of historic sites: Istanbul Historical Peninsula

A S Ergenoglu

Accessible Museums: approaches, methods and tools to stress inclusivity

V Giacometti

Tactile maps for historical buildings: design methods and approaches

A Greco

645

657

665

Adapting historic structures for the blind and visually impaired: a comparative analysis of 673 navigational technologies

E H HeIfers, M Pochily, J Muir, & J Flattum

Enhancing cultural venues through accessibility: recent experiences in Italy and Portugal 683

A Lauria, S Di Salvatore & T Heitor

The complexities of heritage preservation In multicultural environments: identification, 693 conservation and management

D Whelan

XVlll REHAB 2015


Chapter 6 - Inspection and monitoring of historical sites, buildings and structures

Historic centres' surfaces. Integrated procedures for survey, diagnosis and conservation

M Balzani & F Maietti

Inspecting historic buildings using ontologies

R Cacciotti & J Valach

Vibration characteristics of a brick lighthouse in Japan

AM Hidaka & T Aoki

Monitoring oftraditional dwelling in Mediterranean climate: an approximation

V Jimenez-L6pez, C M Calder6n-Aguilera, G Boj6rquez-Morales, A Luna-Le6n & C Garcia-G6mez

705

715

725

735

Protective effect of clay plaster for the fire design of timber constructions 745 J Liblik & A Just

Seismic assessment of baroque buildings: large scale inspection tools for the meshing process and 755 the validation of numerical models

C Limoge Schraen, C Giry, F Ragueneau & C Desprez

Techniques of massive data capture: experiences in the Gothic Cathedral of Tortosa

J Lluis i Ginovart, A Costa-Jover & S Coli-PIa

Assessment of the South aisle in Canterbury Cathedral, UK

P B Lourenyo, G Karanikoloudis, N Mendes & C Corallo

Vibration characteristics of historical masonry buildings based on seismic observation

M Miyamoto & T Hanazato

Typology based method for choosing old masonry walls inspection procedures

L F Ramos, F M Fernandes & 0 Chesler

Applying the principles of intervention in Libyan historic buildings

S M Tarhuni

767

777

789

799

809

Non-destructive techniques used in the chapel of Mufioz. Cathedral of Santamaria of Cuenca, Spain 821

E Torrero, N Arroyo, 0 Sanz & V Navarro

Chapter 7 - New materials and products for the rehabilitation of historical buildings and structures

Applied materials valuation in the chromatic reintegration of polychrome facades 833 M Juan Bald6 & J L Regidor Ros

Design method and chromatic characterization of restoration mortars for concrete fayade panels 841

J Miranda, J Valenya, L Sousa & E Julio

Lime-based repair mortars with water-repellent admixtures: laboratory durability assessment 851

C Nunes & Z Slizkova

Rheological properties of hydraulic grouts used in consolidation of brick masonry walls

o Oktay, N Yiizer & S Ulukaya

861

Contents

The potential of wood-based solutions for sustainable rehabilitation

J M Silva & J Branco

Mechanical behavior of two-wythe brick masonry walls injected with hydraulic lime grout

N Ytizer, D Oktay, S Ulukaya & E Y Gokyigit-Arpaci

Chapter 8 - Sustainability principles and practices in the rehabilitation of historical buildings and structures

Energy modeling and historic masonry building energy retrofit

N Ahn

XIX

869

879

891

Energy use reduction for sustainable reuse of public heritage buildings: the stakeholders' 901 perspectives

o K Akande, D Odeleye, A Coday & C Jimenez Bescos

Reducing environmental impacts by closing life cycle of buildings and materials

R Amoeda 911

The HQDIL method to assess the sustainability of an historic center case of Mansourah K'bira 921 (Algeria)

S Farida & M Said

Documentation tools and decision systems for built heritage rehabilitation

E Gigliarelli, L Cessari & G Quattrone 931

The redevelopment of the Roebling complex in Trenton: a case study in historic preservation and 941 sustainable design

J D S Hatch

The rehabilitation and sustainability of vernacular heritage housing: a case study in Madeira Island 951 A M T Martins, J S Carlos & E Vieira

Between sustainability and preservation, a case study approach

R Millo-Steinlauf

Life cycle assessment of energy retrofitting solutions for Portuguese buildings from the 70s

R Morbey, R Mateus & L Braganc;a

The sustainability of fac;ades preservation: LCA of maintenance techniques for finishing

M Paleari, M Lavagna & A Campioli

Energetic refurbishment results of single house according to their construction period

A Perez Fargallo & J Canivell Garcia de Paredes

959

969

979

989

Evaluation of bioclimatic design features of vernacular architecture in Cyprus. Case studies from 999 rural settlements in different climatic regions

M Philokyprou, A Michael, A Savvides & E Malaktou

An evaluation tool for the rehabilitation of existing university residences 1009 E Romano

Eco efficient recovery of historical buildings and eco innovation of building elements A M Scolaro

1017

xx

The sustainable reuse of existing buildings

S H Stone

Symbiotic Architecture for building and urban rehabilitation

E Zamperini & S Lucenti


1029

1037

Comparative study on preservation and reuse of historical buildings between China and Japan: a 1047 legal and policy perspective

S Zheng, L Cai & Y Chen

Chapter 9 - Historical centres

Tiberias; Historic City with no Historical Center

A Amiri

1057

Strolling city centers: the issue of accessibility versus the recovery and conservation of historical 1067 pavements

A Arenghi, B Chiarelli & I Garofolo

Methodology for analysis and urban critical survey of the historical centre of the blue city of 1077 Jodhpur

M Balzani, F Maietti, P Massai & L Rossato

Earthquake pedestrians' evacuation in historical urban scenarios: a combined simulation model 1085 including human behaviors and post-earthquake modifications

G Bernardini, M D'Orazio, E Quagliarini & L Spalazzi

Active preservation and use of historical urban centers - the case study of the Belgrade old city 1095 core

M R Blagojevic & M Nikolic

Interstices: a virtuous chain to reanimate historical centres

G Carnevale

1105

Conservation and restoration in the post-seism reconstruction plan of Fossa. Typological and 1115 construction features of the urban fabric

C F Carocci & S E Petrella

The historical centre of Crevalcore (Bologna). Seismic damage, historical characters, rehabilitation 1125 strategies

C F Carocci & C Tocci

Recycling/reuse: the project dimension of historic cities conservation 1135

N Carra

A semiotic reading of the urban context and its layering through the illustrative example of the city 1143 of Bari

V Dario

Rehabilitation vs. renovation: re-using landmarked houses in the historic centre of Athens

A Dimitrakopoulos

The urban archaeology contribution to city design

C Fallanca

1153

1169

Contents XXI

Understanding place. An empirical appraisal of the appropriation of historic built environments 1179 J A Garcia-Esparza

From billiards to Vice-Chancellery: FremantIe's West End

S Mcgann

From disused production buildings to working machines in the historic city

P Miano

The impact of conflict on the treatment of architectural heritage: Walled Nicosia, Cyprus

C Pieri

1187

1197

1207

Green spaces as a strategy for urban heritage preservation of historical center Ensenada, Mexico 1219 C Rivera Torres & E Padres Le6n

Using the heritage trail to rehabilitate Boston's Government Center

T M Rohan

Urban archaeology: a planning proposal in sensitive areas

A Taccone

1229

1235

Conservation and restoration in the post-seismic Reconstruction Plan of Fossa. Architectural 1243 features and external finishes of the historical centre

M R Vitale & C Serra

The rehabilitation ofItalian small historical centers: Monasterace, a recent case-study

M Zampilli & F Geremia

Index of Authors

1253

1263

Chapter 3

Tourism and promotion of historical sites, bUildings and structures

Chapter 3 Tourism and promotion of historical sites, buildings and structures 361

From Greek town to Turkish tourism resort: Kayakoy since early 20th century

z. Aktiire Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT: Forced population exchange between Turkey and Greece after World War I left many former Greek towns in Turkey unoccupied ever since, in a quasi-archaeological state, as in Kayakoy between modem Fethiye and OlUdeniz in western Anatolia. Known as Levissi in Greek, the settlement was the largest social and commercial centre of the area. The outgoing exchangees were artisans while the incoming were farmers living in scattered villages around Thessaloniki. Evaluating Kayakoy as unsuitable for their lifestyle, the incomers settled mostly on the coastal band; and the estates allocated for them in Kayakoy were transferred to the State Treasury in 1950s. This State ownership forms the legal basis for a current project to convert one-thirds of Kayakoy into a 300-bed hotel. The proposed paper attempts to outline changing policies of tourism investment in Turkey along this century-long path that eventuated in a decision to convert a prominent Greek town into a tourism resort.

1 INTRODUCTION

In September 2014, Turkish media reported on a protocol between Ministries of Culture and Tourism (MCT), and Environment and Urbanism (MEU), on partial rental of the abandoned Kayakoy village in Fethiye township of Mugla province for 49 years, for restoration into a 300-bed tourism resort. The company to materialize and manage the resort on 220 hectares would be defined by bidding, staring from 30 million TL estimated total project cost, and the winner would be responsible from conserving the remaining village houses, according to some news agencies. Opposition against the project also found press coverage, including a signature campaign by Friends of Kayakoy addressing the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and an organization by Kayakoy Defense Platform which brought together Greek and Turkish musicians on the auction night to stop it and annul the project protocol.

Bidding results were not yet announced a week later, while the name of tourism giant Anemon started to be voiced in the press. This provoked a parliamentary question from a Mugla deputy of Republican People' s Party (CRP for Cumhuriyet Ralk Partisi) to the Minister of Culture and Tourism from Justice and Development Party (AKP for Adalet ve Kalkmma Partisi), requesting clarification on the scope of the intended restoration project, rumors about extended construction rights on the registered urban site of Kayakoy, reasons for introducing hotel function and protection measures for Kayakoy in case of tourism use, and the names of the companies permitted to construct and manage hotels in Kayakoy. A week later, lawyers volunteering for Kayakoy Platform opened the first legal case against the resort project, for overruling conservation legislation by converting a registered public site into a private hotel in such a way as to destroy integrity and protection-use balance.

For an evaluation of this current situation from a wider perspective, this paper aims to scrutinize the history of attempts to open Kayakoy for tourism use since 1970s and the opposing resistance to ensure protection of the site as cultural heritage. All the earlier attempts for tourism development had also found press coverage as ambitious and pioneering projects of their time,

r

362 REHAB 2015


reflecting the expectations and priorities of stakeholders. For this reason, the paper largely builds on press archives to trace legal and administrative changes in attempts to open Kayakoy to dense tourism use and their prevention through a discourse of cultural heritage protection. Considering the international profile of the participants of this conference, references to the press coverage has been omitted in the selected bibliography at the end of the paper. The concluding discussion aims to reveal the exemplary nature of the Kayakoy case for similar implementations in other abandoned Ottoman villages especially along the western coast of Anatolia, leaving some inferences open to further research l

.

2 POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INITIAL ATTEMPTS AT TOURISM INVESTMENT

A good starting point for tracing changes in the legal status of Kayakoy is a much earlier parliamentary question on the number and residential status of the exchangees who arrived from Greece into Turkey after Lausanne Treaty of 1923, and the related activities of the Ministry of Exchange Settlement and Construction specifically founded for the purpose (<;apa, 1990). Insuffic iency of the Minister's answer resulted in an interpellation that was answered by three earlier Ministers who responded to accusations of getting lost in bureaucracy to the degree of showing no presence at all, of importing foreign elements (such as Albanians and Greek-speaking Copts) among exchangees, and misery of incoming exchangees due to their unplanned and programmed settlement. Kaya township of Fethiye was among given examples, due to over a thousand abandoned houses and fertile agricultural land undistributed to incoming exchangees.

A report by the Settlement Division of Mugla Government to the Ministry of Interior Affairs (MIA) reveals the still un(re)settled state of Kayakoy in December 1925, referencing land to be distributed to exchangees near some 1,600 abandoned houses which were evaluated as unsuitable for partial settlement (Aks:a, 2008). Another report in December 1926 by Fethiye Prefecture to Mugla Governorship that was forwarded to MIA describes the condition of 726 houses and shops in Fethiye and its environs, still unoccupied after distribution of 250 others to exchangees from Rhodes, as heavily earthquake-damaged to the degree that their repair would be too costly for the State Treasury to compensate (Aks:a, 2008). Although it is not clear if any of these were located in Kayakoy, the comparative stability and ongoing unsettled state of Kayakoy houses are attested in the suggestion of government spokesmen for temporary settlement in the village after a powerful earthquake devastated Fethiye and its environs in 1957 (Tamk, 2012). This strength of Kayakoy houses should be attributed to the expertise of the Greek craftsmen who built it as Levissi in 18th century, on the site of the ancient Greek Karmylissos, in construction crafts such as ironworking, carpentry and masonry as well road pavements with cobblestone (Ekinci, 1996). They were using a special mortar mixing lime with a certain kind of sand called "dargilli" from the local quarries that made it stronger than cement. Also firmness of the rocky foundation of the village should have a share in the resistance of the buildings above, which include stone masonry houses whose number is cited in a variety from 1,000 to 3,000 in different sources as the population size in the range between 6,500 and 25,000.

There were two churches, fourteen chapels, two schools, two fountains and two windmills in the village. Outgoing exchangees remembered the village also with its coffee houses and shops near the Upper/Taxiarchis Church; textiles and bread produced within each household that had a goat each; women and men celebrating weddings together, dancing zeibekiko and not sirtaki, and drinking fig rakl and not wine, since the traditional products from grapes were molasses and jam, not wine (Aleko, 1994). For a period it its history, Levissi was the largest settlement in the region, and had a pharmacy and hospital, post office and library, printing machine and a newspaper (Ekinci, 1996). The incoming exchangees were living on agriculture and, evaluating the evacuated Greek settlement on the rocks as unsuitable for their lifestyle, they settled on the coastal band instead ofthe houses designated for their resettlement (Tamk, 2012). Several popular sources agree on the presence of ex chan gees from Thessaloniki in the already occupied houses in Kayakoy who were given their title deeds by the Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre in 1957 while property rights of estates unoccupied by then were transferred to the State Treasury (Has, 2012). In time, the unoccupied houses were stolen of their timber components for heating the occupied ones in Kayakoy and other nearby villages, indicating a lack of disinterest on the part of the State in their conservation.


Later recognition of Kayakoy's tourism potential is attested by a physical plan dated 1978 for transforming Kayakoy into a 16,000-unit international holiday village to be connected to the sea via cable car, which was prepared during CHP deputy Alev Co~kun's Ministry of Tourism and Promotion (MTP) to be realized with finance from the World Bank (KlZllayak, 2013). This unrealized proposal was revised in 1985 by MCT, in the 1125,000 scale Fethiye-Dalaman Environmental Master Plan (Fethiye-Dalaman <;evre Dtizeni Nazlm imar Plalll) that was part of Mugla Tourism Development Project, which programmed a 30,000-bed tourism area around Fethiye, 12,000 of them in Kayakoy (KlZllayak, 2013). Kayakoy was designated as a "special project area" in the plan to allow for conditions and qualifications beyond those set by the legal framework for tourism investments and businesses (Ekinci, 1996). With the approval of the Master Plan in September 1988, some companies applied to the Ministry of Culture to rent Kayakoy for 49 years to transform it into Akkulak-Gemiler Harbour Kayakoy Tourism Centre (1987) within the framework of Tourism Promotion Law. Among these companies were Yer Holding, one of whose top executives explained their vision for the place as consisting of houses for foreign visitors who would cook their own food or eat in the restaurants alongside sports areas and cinema, theatre, concert and conference halls to be added to the area without destroying the cultural character of Kayakoy, apparently as "special qualifications" at an estimated cost of80 billion TL (Turizimci goztiyle ... , 1988).

3 AN ALTERNATIVE UTOPIA: KAY AKOY PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE

In May 1988, a group of visitors including board members of the Turkish Chamber of Architects (TCA) heard about this project from villagers in the format that Kayakoy would finally be "rescued" by a company that would rent and convert it into a holiday resort (Ekinci, 1996). As an alternative rescue operation, TCA decided to collaborate with Turkish-Greek Friendship Association (TGF A), founded in 1988 by a parliamentary decree under the presidency of the late Ekrem Akurgal (1911-2002), in transforming Kayakoy into a Peace and Friendship Village (TMOB ' 98, 1999). The first forum organized in October 1988 by the two institutions under the auspices of Mugla Municipality brought together representatives of potential investors in Kayakoy (such as Yer and Kavala Holdings and the Tourism Bank) in addition to Greek and Turkish intellectuals and local authorities (Ekinci, 1996). The model proposed to forum participants for sustainable development of Kayakoy was the establishment of tourism cooperatives and multi-partner companies under the leadership of TCA and TGF A, with the participation of investing companies and local inhabitants, and the management of funds by a non-profit foundation. For implementing the master project to be prepared by a committee of representatives from all entities in the formation, international finance would be sought for the research and education components while the artists, intellectuals and scientists of the two countries would be requested to finance the restoration of individual houses to their own name (Ekinci, 1996).

Legal applications to proceed in the direction of forum decisions revealed Special Environmental Protection Agency (O<;KK for Ozel <;evre Koruma Kurumu) under the Prime Ministry as the legal responsible for conservation planning in all Specially Protected Areas in Turkey, among which we find Kayakoy since the 1988 decision of the Council of Ministers (Ozel <;evre ... , 1988). Forum decisions were in harmony with the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas (1982) which was approved by Turkey in 1988 (Akdeniz'de Ozel. . . , 1988). Emphasizing on the rehabilitation of Mediterranean cultural heritage under protection, the Protocol was fostering bilateral collaboration in the region, as exemplified by Greek representation in the Kayakoy forum. The Aegean Cultures Research Institute and the International Education Centre named as the University for Peace Culture in the TCA information booklet for the Kayakoy project were to contribute in the protection of scientific, aesthetic, historic, archaeological, cultural and educational characteristics of the site, as targeted in the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas, offering graduate education in art and cultural history, architecture, plastic arts, archaeology, anthropology, ethnology etc (TMMOB, n.d.). Open and closed museums, conversion of the two churches in Kayakoy into cultural centres and attached workshops were to encourage educational and cultural activities to meet off-season management costs.

Other components were a health unit with a natural medicine pharmacy to contribute in the socio-cultural development of the local population, a veterinary and amateur observatory for ag-

364 REHAB 2015


riculture and livestock, Karmylassos Excavation House and Museum for research on the oldest settlement layers of the site, an international youth centre, sports areas and offices for contributing institutions such as ICOMOS, UNICEF, ICCROM, WHO, Restorers Without Borders, European Students' General Forum (AEGEE for Association des Etats Generaux des Etudiants de l'Europe), HIC (HABITAT International Coalition), Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB for TUrk Mlihendis ve Mimar Odalan Birligi), Foundation for the Protection and Promotion of the Environment and Cultural Heritage (EKUL for (evre ve KilltUr Degerlerini Koruma ve Tamtma Vakft) and universities (TMMOB, n.d.).

A comparison of this programme with the vision of Yer Holding would reveal its difference, which affected the proposed interventions to avoid changes in the natural topography through new constructions: demountable structures for some activities, respecting the existing architectural character of the region for establishing continuity with the cultural fabric and landscape, restoration of a sufficient number of abandoned Kayakoy houses to accommodate the proposed programme, if necessary through expropriation of some property with the consent of their owners, preferably through property swap (TMMOB, n.d.). Services requiring new constructions would be located on the border of the plain named Kaya <;ukuru (Rock Pit) at the skirts of the village, with ecotourism development alongside ecological farming in the plain, and house pensioning and craft production in other nearby villages (TMMOB, n.d.). Alongside the use of renewable energy resources and prevention of natural disasters, local populations would be further protected through conservation planning to control population increase beyond the limited economic capacity of Kaya <;ukuru, with measures to preserve the traditional ownership pattern through bans on plot division and unification, and the coast through the construction only of a small quay for 3-4 boarding ships and demountable cabins for swimmers (TMMOB, n.d.).

Local populations would be the primary beneficiaries of the project while local authorities would be the main service providers especially for the technical infrastructure, with current residents of Nea Makri (Fethiye) and Nea Levissi (Kaya) districts in Athens where exchangees from the region had later settled contributing in the museum and documentation centre to be established on the site (TMMOB, n.d.). On this basis, "traditional activities of the local populations" to be safeguarded during the legalization of protection measures, according to the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas, were construed as "peace and friendship" by the late Oktay Ekinci (1952-2013), who was the vice-president of TCA at the time, and an influential figure in the Kayakoy campaign due to his prominence in journalism, which brought him the Abdi Ipekr;i Friendship and Peace Special Award in 1996.

In December 1989, TCA signed a protocol with Fethiye Municipality to collaborate on the Kayakoy Peace and Friendship Village project, starting with the inclusion of Kayakoy in the contiguous area of the Municipality (Ekinci, 1996). In late 1980s and early 1990s, the dominant theme of activities in support of the project was peace and friendship between Greece and Turkey. An organization by Fethiye Municipality brought Priest Nicolaos of Rhodes and Fethiye imam Ali Yurtkul together to pray, in the presence of some 100 visitors from Greece, for strengthened peace and friendship between the two peoples in the guidance of Kayakoy (Ekinci, 1996). On the tangible front, Patriarch Bartholomew I ofthe Greek Orthodox Church in Phanar, Istanbul applied to Fethiye Municipality with a restoration proposal for one of the churches in Kayakoy (Ekinci, 1996). In the period 1993-1995, Galata Volunteers student group working under the Istanbul Branch of TCA prepared measured drawings of some Kayakoy houses and interviewed some locals with the support of Fethiye Municipality, organizing also a Kayakoy Symposium in Istanbul in June 1994 and a Convention of Architecture Students in Turkey (TMOB for TUrkiye Mimarhk Ogrencileri Bulu~mast) in August 1998 (TMOB .. . , 1999).

4 LEGAL STATUS OF KAYAKOY: REGISTRATIONS AND PLANNING

By that time, all these activities had started to attract considerable number of visitors to the site, from whom MCT started collecting entrance fees in 1991 (TMOB ... , 1999). As to financing the Peace and Friendship project, not much progress could be made due to the worsening relations between Greece and Turkey in late 1980s. Despite efforts coordinated by the Ministry of Exterior Affairs (MEA), a 20 million US dollar fund allocated for Kayakoy by the European Union (EU) to Greece for establishing good relations with its neighbours could not be used


(Tav~anoglu, 2004). This loan could be identical to the one mentioned in the press as allocated to Greece for the restoration of a street in Kayakoy by EU European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG 3 channel (The Community ... , 2000-2006). Within the framework of a protocol between TCA Fethiye Representative and Union of Travel Agencies in Turkey (TURSAB for Tiirkiye Seyahat Acentalan Birligi), measured drawings of the two churches and three houses in Kayakoy were completed by March 2001 and presented for the approval of Izmir II Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets (Bozyigit & Tapur, 2010). Before the approval ofIzmir Council in August 2001 (Klzilkayak, 2013), Patriarch Bartholomew visited Kayakoy once more to inspect ongoing church restorations, and praised the rapprochement between Greece and Turkey thanks to the efforts of the two Ministers of Exterior Affairs, the late Ismail Cern (1940-2007) and Giorgos Papandreu. These shifts through the years in the relations between Greece and Turkey reveal the fragility of the foundation on which the project to rescue Kayakoy as a Peace and Friendship Village was established.

In addition to these single building restorations, another important step to prevent Kayakoy's conversion into a holiday village was Izmir Council's decision, in reply to TCA's application, to register Kayakoy as Urban and 3rd Degree Archaeological Site in 1991 (T.C. Kiiltiir. . . , 2013). This decision necessitated preparation of a conservation plan in one year. However, despite TCA's support for the Municipality's appeals, Kayakoy was still outside of Fethiye Municipality's contiguous area, which left the Municipality unauthorized for conservation planning. Although MCT was authorized for planning archaeological, historical and urban sites registered by the relevant Conservation Councils, there was the need for the transfer of property rights from the Ministry of Finance (MF) to MCT, due to Kayakoy's being among unsettled property that were transferred to the State Treasury as public property after the population exchange of the early 20th century. Finally in 2005, MCT allocated a 200,000 TL budget for conservation planning of Kay akoy , through a bid to be opened by Fethiye Prefecture, as was the procedure for all areas that were outside of municipal boundaries (Kayakoy'e imar. .. , 2005).

In the same period, however, O<;KK had used its planning authority from Kayakoy's being located in a Specially Protected Area designated in 1988 to prepare a 115000 scale conservation master plan for Fethiye-Kayakoy and a 1/5000 scale conservation plan for the registered urban and archaeological sites of Kayakoy-Levissi, which were approved in 2006 (T.e. KUltiir. .. , 2013). This should be the plan mentioned in a 2012 news bulletin of Fethiye Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FSTO for Fethiye Sanayi ve Ticaret Odasl) as waiting at the Council of State since 2009, after the application made by Mugla Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets working under MCT when the Council lost the legal case against O<;KK for not taking the Council's consent on a plan for a registered archaeological and urban site. Kayakoy residents shared their complaints on "not being able to drive a single nail" into their houses for 20 years, due to the suspension of all construction work at the site up to the court's decision and a conservation plan's entrance into force (e.g. Has, 2012), as in other settlements with a similar legal status. Yet, news on illegal constructions also appeared in the press, alongside damage brought by local authorities, as in the demolition of walls that were as old as Kayakoy houses, during road widening works in Kaya <;ukuru, outside of the area registered as Urban and 3rd Degree Archaeological Site (Ekinci, 1996). In 2004, Tav~anoglu reported 280 illegal constructions, mostly out of reinforced concrete, and rocketing land prices in Sterling due to the British settling in the area in the past two years when real estate agents were marketing ruined houses without mentioning the legal status of the area. In 2011, 736 civil and 24 religious and cultural buildings (i.e. church, monastery, chapel, cistern, windmill, bakery, fountain etc) in Kayakoy were registered as 1 st Group Monuments by the Mugla Council.

In the meanwhile, cultural uses of the site were expanding, most consistently with an international art camp of 10 one-week-long workshop periods on photography, music, architecture etc, in a house restored by Ali Erkut Tufan. In 2005, accommodation possibilities at the site were confined to boardinghouses and this Kayakoy Art Camp, with many restaurants serving to daily visitors (Tiirkmenoglu, 2005); while in 2010, the total capacity reached 265 beds in 150 apart hotels and 10 boardinghouses, with 12 restaurants and 32 patty houses listed as registered touristic businesses (Bozyigit & Tapur, 2010). Contribution to this mobility from the architects' front came with a workshop in September 2010 to "Experience Kayakoy" as a EU Youth Exchange project (GUney & Andag, 2011) and a symposium organized by TCA Mugla Branch's Fethiye Representative in September 2011 (KlZllkayak, 2013).

366 REHAB 2015


As to visitor numbers, Kayakoy had some 57,500 visitors in 2010 (Bozyigit & Tapur, 2010), 43 ,000 in 2011 (Tiirkiye'nin ilk . .. , 2012), and 68,000 in 2012 the majority whom were foreigners (Kayakoy'e yabancI. . . , 2013). In September 2012, the media reported on the intensity oflocal and foreign visitors in the Kayakoy public market, which was initiated by the Fethiye Flavour Project for collaboration between agriculture and tourism to use organic agricultural products of the area in tourism through local hotels and restaurants, to which craft production was later added. Although these numbers reveal the suitability ofKayakoy for day tourism, a series of legal and administrative changes starting with the establishment of MEU and connection ofOCKK to it changed the fate ofKayakoy among other protected sites.

5 DESIGNA nON OF KA Y AKOY FOR TOURISM USE BY RENT

A major step was taken towards opening Kayakoy for tourism when MCT decided to withdraw from the case pending at the Council of State following a visit to Kayakoy by Ertugrul Giinay, Minister of Culture and Tourism (Has, 2012). In response, MEU decided to remove the commentaries inscribed on the title deeds in the area (Fethiye Sanayi ve Ticaret OdasI, 2012), which most probably banned their sale to owners other than MEU, which now has the authority for planning in Specially Protected Areas. Later in 2013, the media reported on the protocol mentioned at the beginning of this paper as signed between MCT and MEU to open Kayakoy for tourism. The protocol divided the Specially Protected Area designated in 1988 into two parts, as archaeological and natural, and opened the first to tourism use while increasing construction rights in the second from a maximum of 3% for agricultural land to 15%. The media reported that 30% of the abandoned Greek houses in Kayakoy were planned for tourism use through bidding, and the winning company would be responsible from the restoration of the remaining houses. Kos: Group, among the oldest and strongest industrialized family companies that owns Divan luxury hotel chain, was reported to have applied to the government earlier for the restoration of the whole village in return for complete control over the management of the site, which was declined for reasons other than the content of the proposal (Tamk, 2012). Kos: Group will be remembered to have opened the Divan Hotel in Taksim Square to protestors against the government during the later Gezi uprising of May 2013, followed by a police operation into the hotel in June 2013 . The first bid in March 2013 is reported alternatively as having attracted four companies or none, despite the full support of local organizations including FSTO.

The Specifications for Allocating Public Immovables to Tourism Investors gives a list of the plots to be allocated for a 300-bed private tourism resort in Mugla, Fethiye, Kayakoy Village, Levissi Premises (T.C. Killtiir ... , 2013). The ordinance that enables allocation of public immovables for tourism investments also opens the way for "urgent" expropriation of private property in "culture and tourism conservation and development areas" like Kayakoy to be registered as property of the State Treasury for their allocation by MF to MCT in the course of a month and by MCT for tourism investments (Kamu ta~mmazlarmm . . . , 2006, 2009, 2012), explaining also the commentaries inscribed earlier by MEU on Kayakoy title deeds. Only 20 families were reported as resident in Kayakoy in 1980 (Ba~tan, 1980); and while TCA was preparing a presentation on Kayakoy in 2002 for the International Union of Architects (UIA) 2005 meeting in Istanbul, privately owned houses were 50 in number, with one belonging to the late President Turgut Ozal's (1927-1993) drummer son-in-law ASIm Ekren (TMMOB, n.d.). This reveals a major problem in the implementation model proposed for Kayakoy Peace and Friendship Village Project through private support, due to the expanse of State ownership. In a publication dated 2010, Bozyigit and Tapur also confirm private ownership of only 50 among some 2000 houses in Kayakoy, attesting State-owned status of the remaining majority . When the first bid opened in 2013 for tourism investment at the site, some 40 families were permanently resident in Kayakoy (Kaya Koy ... ,2012) and Kaya <;ukuru plain below, adding up to a population of some 2000 people (Sessiz tamk . . . , 2012). The degree to which these people would be affected from the planned tourism use in the short, middle and long run should be further investigated.

General conditions in the Ordinance for Allocating Public Immovables to Tourism Investors requires from investors in Kayakoy-Levissi a 111000 scale measured map of the area and a conservation plan to be submitted to MCT at the stage of prior authorization, to be presented by MCT to the approval of Mugla Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural Assets before the


approval of MEU, with the further requirement of Mugla Council's approval for all types of future implementations (T.C. Kiiltiir ... , 2013). As to the scope of the project, general conditions allowed spaces for museum(s); exhibition and display; accommodation, eating and drinking, and sales; performance and other activities; amusement, recreation, health and sports; reception and administration; open-air excursions as well as technical infrastructure and services related to these functions for cultural tourism with the condition of preserving preexisting urban texture and structural characteristics. Since the priority is on preserving Kayakoy-Levissi History and Culture Tourism Area in its architectural integrity and the present semi-ruined image, repair and re-functioning is allowed only for 30% of the extant constructions, which are to be indicated in the 1 II 000 scale conservation plan. This attests the fact that, the semi-ruined state of Kayakoy has changed status from being a conservation problem into a marketing potential in the eye of the two authorities responsible from safeguarding our heritage for future generations. The immovables to be converted for cultural and tourism uses are to be communicated to MF at the stage of prior authorization when the overall accommodation capacity and open-closed restoration and construction areas should also be concretized. Although press coverage during the two bidding periods were stressing on the future contractor's responsibility for conserving the buildings other than those to be re-functioned for tourism use, no such condition is written among the articles of the Ordinance for Allocating Public Immovables to Tourism Investors, except the requirement for a measured map ofthe area and a conservation plan.

6 DISCUSSION: HOW COULD KAY AKOY RESIST?

The historical perspective presented up to here reveals the attempt to open Kayakoy for tourism use to have a history of some four decades, with the first project towards this end dating from a period when the CHP was in coalition with independent MPs towards the end of 1978. It is highly possible that the proposal mentioned with the name of CHP's Minister of Tourism and Promotion Alev Co~kun for Kayakoy was part of Mugla Master Plan (1973). Dating from the same period are the project reports (also in English) of South Antalya (1976), Koycegiz-Mugla (1976) and Seferihisar-Dilek (1976) Tourism Development Projects and Bolu (1978) and Van Lake and Its Environs (1978) Tourism and Recreation Master Plans, among the publications of MCT Planning and Investments Office. When evaluated together with Nev~ehir Tourism Plan (1965) prepared through a collaboration of the Ministry of Reconstruction and Settlement (MRS) with that of Tourism and Promotion (MTP), in a period when the Ministry of Culture was not yet established, these publications reveal the intention of the central government to benefit from the tourism potential of naturally and culturally rich areas through regional planning.

In 1969, a 3-km-wide Aegean-Mediterranean coastal band extending from the coastal end of <;anakkale-Bahkesir border in the north to the coastal end of Antalya-iyel border in the south was declared as a Tourism Development Area with a decision of the Council of Ministers on principles for tourism development (Ministry of Culture ... , 1976). In this wide area, SeferihisarDilek Tourism Development Project was prepared by MTP through a protocol signed in 1976 with MRS and the Provincial Bank established in 1933 to finance provincial administrations and municipalities (Ministry of Culture .. . , 1976). The area had priority, as did the archaeological site of Side in South Antalya, also in earlier development plans prepared under the coordination of State Planning Organization (DPT for Devlet Planlama Te~kilatJ), possibly due to the location in the area of Ephesos, the most visited cultural heritage site in Turkey after Istanbul.

The variety in the adopted models within the same Tourism Development Area is exemplified by South Antalya Tourism Development Project that was initiated in 1974 in a holistic approach integrating planning, programming, finance and implementation processes (Ors, 2005). After the completion of a 1125,000 scale Master Plan and feasibility studies in 1976, implementation was started immediately on the basis of a credit agreement with the World Bank in 1976 for a loan of 25 million US dollars (Ors, 2005). This agreement would give a hint to interpret the mention of possible World Bank finance for the international holiday village project for Kayakoy dating to 1978. Ors's criticism of South Antalya Tourism Development Project would also hint at possible reasons for the lack of incentive for the first Kayakoy project: failure of the public administration, that largely owned the landed property in the project area and managed timely allocation of considerable financial resources during the project and implementation

368 REHAB 2015


stages, in reaching the targeted high environmental quality and tourism development at the action plan implementation stage.

After the Council of Ministers' 1969 decision on the principles for tourism development, a Projects Directorate was established in DPT for the Tourism Development Area, and this Directorate prepared the Master Plans for East and South Antalya that is the Belek Tourism Centre of today, one of the central international tourism destinations in Turkey. However, since DPT was not authorized for project implementation by its constitution, the Central Projects Directorate of DPT had to hand over its competences to MTP in 1971 (Kliltiir ve Turizm ... , n.d), with the Directorate's technical staff and advisors joining the MTP teams for tourism development plann!.ng of Mugla and Cappadocia to complete the 11200,000 scale Mugla Master Plan in 1973 (Ors, 2005). Since this plan was not detailed enough to direct and control the distribution and infrastructural organization of investments, comprehensive 1125,000 scale plans had to be prepared to organize implementation beyond land use decisions to be able to overcome the problems stemming from earlier plans of the same scale (Kliltlir ve Turizm ... , n.d). Although technical staff attempted at implementation principles reconciling conflicting development priorities and land use preferences of various state institutions that were authorized with planning rights in the same areas by different legislations, climbing political tension in the country and frequent changes of government did not allow for an agreement between different ministries, and steady and continuous support from the political authority (Ors, 2005). Ors (2005) reports the proposal from the World Bank to provide credit support for regional tourism development projects to be developed by the Turkish Government in such a period of confusion.

Although the technical tourism planning staff of the period was very determined in its strategic and scientific approached based on comprehensive reports, they lost all chance for controlled development through planning in the following period of intense investment with rent expectations, especially after the systematic support provided to investors by the liberal Ozal government from 1985 onwards when all planning work was suspended (Turizmde planlama ... , 2011). Therefore, although the two projects proposed for Kayakoy in late 1970s and mid-1980s would appear to be the outcome of a similar vision on the basis of the accommodation capacity they mutually intended to introduce into the site, they actually envisioned totally different investment and management models. A clear similarity between the two planning periods, however, was the conflicting development priorities and land use preferences of various ministries and state institutions that were authorized by different legislations with planning rights in the same areas. This common problem that is usually voiced for its negative impact due to complications in conservation planning and delays in implementations would seem to have a positive outcome in the case of Kayakoy, by delaying large-scale tourism investments until our present days due to the rivalry between OC;KK and MCT for the authorization in conservation planning that has to be completed and enter into force before any sort of physical intervention in Specially Protected Areas such as Kayakoy, which is additionally registered as Urban and 3rd Degree Archaeological Site. It is also possible to interpret the radical drop from a 16,000-bed capacity in late 1970s, and 12,000 in 1980s, to 300 in 2013 as an eventual improvement. However, this conclusion should be verified by a comparison of the three project areas in size, which could not be done within the temporal limits of this research; without forgetting the possibility that the starting 220 hectare project area of the 2013 bid could be enlarged in time for further capacity.

In the period when conversion of Kayakoy into a 16,000-bed tourism resort was proposed, the priority in development plans prepared by DPT was on Seferihisar-Dilek further to north, where we find Ku~adasl as one of the busiest harbours in Turkey today in terms of cruise tourism. If priority in that period had been given to Fethiye area, perhaps Kayakoy would already have been transformed into a tourism resort. Earthquake risk could have been among factors effecting investment priorities in that period. The end of rivalry between OC;KK and MCT for the authorization in conservation planning for Kayakoy, which marked the following period ofOzal liberalism that supported tourism investors, also marks the end of conflict between the priorities of various ministries and other State institutions in development priorities and land use preferences. Apparently, they now agree on tourism development and join their forces to overcome financial difficulties along the way, by renting the site for 49 years to the best-paying contractor.

In 1970s when Turkish economy started opening to foreign investment, instead of national or international private investors, the World Bank was the preferred source not only for conservations plans but also for regional development plans building on tourism. International private


capital groups such as Anemon came on the stage after the State started to support smaller-scale investments in the name of liberalization with Ozal, in such a way as to recall the liberalcapitalist stage in Jlirgen Habermas' Legitimation Crisis (1975) wherein the State (as the legitimate power) becomes the complementary arrangement to self-regulative market commerce. The property order thus established enables bourgeois ideologies to assume a universalistic structure and appeal to generalizable interests (such as regional development) without a discursively attained consensus, which leads to a system crisis tendency in the form of structurally insoluble economic steering problems. Those encountered in heritage conservation are among such problems faced in countries like Turkey where the national law attests State control over heritage sites, with the additional status of ownership by the State Treasury in the case of immovables that remain abandoned since the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, which has isolated them until recently from the self-regulative market dynamics. Starting with Ozal liberalism, however, the State has started to behave like the maximizing owner in advanced capitalist systems, by willing to exercise its exclusive ownership rights, through putting the property under State protection to its socially most valued use that is tourism (Carman, 2005). In the lack of State funds for investment, national and multi-national corporations regulate the market and the State intervenes whenever functional gaps develop in the process (Habermas, 1975).

In this system, the idea of transforming Kayakoy into a Peace and Friendship Village, building on the already fragile international relations between Greece and Turkey, was apparently bound to remain an utopia, despite the active participation of many NGOs in the process; since the formal democracy offered in advanced capitalist systems as a solution for problems of legitimacy avoids participation, structurally depoliticizing the public realm and reducing the need for legitimation to a requirement for civic privatism (Habermas 1975). In this respect, the Kayakoy case reveals the need for alternative policies operating within the system, not only for Kayakoy itself, but also for many other villages that remain abandoned under State ownership in western Anatolia since the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, such as those on Karaburun Peninsula, which have started to attract the attention of private investors and public authorities in the proximity of one ofthe most vivid tourism centres in Turkey.

I

370

ENDNOTES


I An earlier version of this paper was published in Turkish as Akttire (2015).

REFERENCES

Akya, B. 2008. Lozan Antla~masl'ndan sonra Mugla Vilayeti'ne gelen Balkan Muhacirleri'nin iskam meselesi . Mugla Oniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitiisii Dergisi (iLKE) 21 : 17-31 .

Akdeniz'de Ozel Koruma Alanlanna ili~kin Protokol. Resmi Gazete. 19968 (23.10.1988). Akkulak-Gemiler Limam Kayakoy Turizm Merkezi . Resmi Gazete. 19585 (25.091987). Akttire, Z. 2015 . Kayakoy direniyor. Batl Akdeniz Mimarlzk 58: 77-88. Aleko, 1994. Niko Amca' nm cevaplan. Galata Biilteni (199411). Ba~tan, i. 1980. Bu kentte sadece 20 aile y~lyor. Milliyet (18.11 .1980). Bozyigit, R. & Tapur, T. 2010. Gtineybatl Anadolu'da terk edilen bir yerle~im merkezi: Kayakoy

(Fethiye). Marmara Cografya Dergisi 22: 363-387. Carman, J. 2005 . Against Cultural Property Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. London: Duck

worth. <;;apa, M. 1990.Yunanistan'dan gelen gOymenlerin iskam. Atatiirk Yolu Dergisi 2(5): 49-69. Ekinci, O. 1996. Kayakayii Bart~ ve Dostluk Kayii Olsun. .. Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar OdaSI istanbul

Btiytikkent ~ubesi. Fethiye Sanayi ve Ticaret OdasI. 2012. Kaya imanna kavu~acak, Haberler 1 (8): 7. Gokova, ~ . 2010. Kaya Kayii . Availabla at http://fethiyelilerdernegi.org/fethiye_hakkmda_kaya_koyu-

sayfa_ id-333-id-18522, [accessed 14 May 2015]. Gtiney, D. & Andag, L. 2011. Yerin Deneyimlenmesi: Kayakoy. Mimarhk 362: 52-61. Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press. Has, E. 2012. Mtibadele kentine koruma amayh imar. Radikal (28 .08 .2012). Kamu ta~mmazlarmm turizm yatIrlmlanna tahsisi hakkmda yonetmelikte degi~iklik yapIlmasma dair yo

netmelik. Resmi Gazete 26235 (23.05.2012). Kamu ta~mmazlannm turizm yatIrlmlanna tahsisi hakkmda yonetmelik. Resmi Gazete 26235

(21.07.2006) . Kamu t~mmazlannm yatIrlmlara tahsisine ili~kin usul ve esaslar. Resmi Gazete 27338 (03.09.2009). Kaya Koy halk pazanna ilgi beklenenin tizerinde oldu. Available at http: //beyazgazete.com/ (16 .09.2012). Kayakoy' e yabancl ilgisi: Bir yIlda 68 bin ki~i ziyaret etti, Zaman-Mugla (11.01 .2013). Klzllkayak, G. 2013. Uyan uykundan Kayakoy, Atlas (19 .08.2013). Ktilttir ve Turizm Bakanhgl Planlama ve YatIrlmlar Dairesi Ba~kanhgI. (n.d.). Kaycegiz-Mugla Turizm

Geli~im Projesi. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Department of Planning and Investment. 1976. Seferihisar-Dilek Tour

ism Development Project - Summary. Ankara: Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Department of Planning and Investment.

Ors, H. 2005 . Gtiney Antalya Turizm Geli~im Projesi. Anatolia Turizm Ara~tlrmalart Dergisi 16(2): 204-210.

Ozel <;;evre Koruma Bolgesi. Resmi Gazete 19863 (05.07.1988). Sessiz tamk, Kayakoy. Available at http: //www.haber48.com.trlhaber/sesiz_tanikkayakoy-256.html

(13.10.2012) [accessed 16 May 2015]. Tamk, D. 2012. Oltideniz' in olti koyti ya da Kayakoy. haber.rotahaber.com (14.10.2012). Tav~anoglu, L. 2004. Kayakoy'de 'beton' i~gali'. Cumhuriyet (02.11.2004). T. C. Ktilttir ve Turizm Bakanhgl, YatIrlm ve i~letmeler Genel Mtidtirltigti. 2013. Izmir II Numarah

Ktilttir ve Tabiat Varhklanm Koruma Kurulu'nun 12.06.1991 tarih ve 2048 say II I karan. Turizm Yatzrzmczlarzna Kamu Ta~znmazl Tahsis $artnamesi. Ankara: T.C. Ktilttir ve Turizm Bakanhgl, YatIrlm ve i~letmeler Genel Mtidtirltigti.

The Community Initiative INTERREG III. 2000-2006. Available at http://www.interact-eu.netiinterreg_iii/interreLiii/401l464, [accessed 15 May 2015].

TMMOB Mimarlar OdasI. (n.d.). "Kayakayii Diinya Bart~ ve Dostluk Kayii" Tamtlm Dosyasl. TMOB '98 Kaya Koyti Bulu~masI. Mimarlzk 286 (1999): 42-49. Turizimci goztiyle .. . 80 milyarhk yatIrlm. Hiirriyet Pazar Eki (19.06.1988). Turizmde planlama tizerine soyle~i TUYED Etkinligi (26.12.2011). Available at

http: //blog.milliyet.com.tr/ [accessed 15 May 2015]. Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism: Stop the auction of the historic cultural village Kayakay!

https:llsecure.avaaz.org [accessed 14 May 2015] . Ttirkiye'nin ilk mulaj mtizesi ilgi gormtiyor. Bugiin (19 .04.2012). Ttirkmenoglu, F. 2005. Hayal koy: Kayakoy. Milliyet (17 .07.2005).

Documents

Aktüre, Z. 2015. ‘From Greek town to Turkish tourism resort: Kayaköy since early 20th century’, v. 1, pp. 361-70 in REHAB 2015 Porto, edited by R. Amoêda, S. Lira, C. Pinheiro