Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:21:02.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A political framework for understanding heritage dynamics in Turkey (1950–1980)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2021

Mesut Dinler Open the ORCID record for Mesut Dinler [Opens in a new window]
Mesut Dinler*
Affiliation:
Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: mesut.dinler@polito.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article focuses on the actions of the High Council for Immovable Historic Works and Monuments (HC), which was active from 1951 to 1983 as the sole decision-maker in issues of historic preservation for all historic structures and sites in Turkey. The HC archives reveal a historical and political framework for understanding the context within which the HC operated. Expert knowledge, especially in the conservation of historic cities, has been a powerful instrument, although the use of this instrument depended on the political context. The HC extended its authority in the 1950s, operating under a conservative autocratic government. In the 1960s and 1970s, on the other hand, when central power was lacking and society was dominated by political violence, chaos and economic instability, the HC could reinforce and exercise its power to raise standards in historic preservation in line with the international conservation movement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 364 - 382
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This article is based on my doctoral thesis, completed in 2018 at the ‘Architectural and Landscape Heritage’ programme at Politecnico di Torino University. I would like to thank Rosa Tamborrino for supervising the research, Esra Akcan for her insightful comments and support and Pinar Aykac for generously sharing her archive with me.

References

1 Choay, F., The Invention of the Historic Monument, trans. O'Connell, Lauren M. (Cambridge, 2001), 101Google Scholar.

2 Laurajane Smith has shown how an ‘authorized heritage discourse’ is produced which provides authority and gives recognition to experts of historic preservation. Smith, L., Uses of Heritage (New York, 2006)Google Scholar. Meskell has also demonstrated that UNESCO had gradually become an international expert-based technocratic organization whereas in the 1960s it had facilitated post-war peace-making efforts through international collaboration for heritage-oriented projects. The most notable of these projects is the UNESCO-supported rescue campaign for relocating the 1260 BCE temples of Abu Simbel in Nubia which were threatened by the construction of the Aswan Dam. This campaign was instrumental in the formation of the idea of ‘international cultural property’: see Meskell, L., A Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace (New York, 2018)Google Scholar; Meskell, L., ‘States of conservation: protection, politics, and pacting within UNESCO's World Heritage Committee’, Anthropological Quarterly, 87 (2014), 217–43Google Scholar. Similarly, Rodney Harrison has argued that through global organizations and design of bureaucratic processes, heritage came to be perceived as an expert field detached from the public and everyday life. Harrison, R., Heritage: Critical Perspectives (Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar.

3 Schofield, J., ‘Heritage expertise and the everyday: citizens and authority in the twenty-first century’, in Schofield, J. (ed.), Who Needs Experts? Counter-Mapping Cultural Heritage (Farnham, 2014), 1–11Google Scholar.

4 Hølleland, H. and Skrede, J., ‘What's wrong with heritage experts? An interdisciplinary discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25 (2019), 825–36Google Scholar.

5 Smith, Uses of Heritage.

6 I have tried to benefit from the archive on several occasions for research purposes and each time I was provided with a different level of access by a different director. During my last visit in December 2019, the director told me that they had closed the archive permanently, and then she allowed me a quick look.

7 Aykaç, P., ‘Archives as fields of heritage-making in Istanbul's historic peninsula’, International Journal of Islamic Architecture, 9 (2020), 361–87Google Scholar.

8 D. Kuban and M. Yıldırım, Bir Rönesans Adamı: Doğan Kuban Kitabı (A Renaissance Man: The Doğan Kuban Book) (İstanbul, 2007), 134–8.

9 S. Eyice, ‘İstanbul Eski Eserleri Koruma Encümeni’, in I. Tekeli (ed.), Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, vol. IV (İstanbul, 1994), 222. See also S. Eyice, ‘Eldem, Halil Ethem (1861–1938)’, in İslam Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul, 1995), 18–21.

10 Acikgoz, U.F., ‘On the uses and meanings of architectural preservation in early Republican Istanbul (1923–1950)’, Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 11 (2016), 167–85Google Scholar. See also Aykaç, P., ‘The Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities and its role in the appropriation of İstanbul's diverse heritage as national heritage (1939–1953)’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 62 (2020), 75–99Google Scholar.

11 Anon., Anıtları Koruma Komisyonu'nun 1933–1935 Yıllarındaki Çalışmaları (İstanbul, 1935); Madran, E., ‘Cumhuriyetin ilk otuz yılında (1920–1950) koruma alanının örgütlenmesi’, METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 16 (1996), 59–97Google Scholar.

12 Altınyıldız, N., ‘The architectural heritage of İstanbul and the ideology of preservation’, Muqarnas, 24 (2007), 281–306Google Scholar; M. Dinler, Modernization through Past: Cultural Heritage during the Late-Ottoman and the Early-Republican Period in Turkey (Pisa, 2019).

13 A.S. Ülgen, Anıtların Korunması ve Onarılması – I (Ankara, 1943).

14 Z. Ahunbay, ‘Genç Cumhuriyetin Koruma Alanındaki Öncülerinden Y. Mimar Ali Saim Ülgen (1913–1963)’ (One of the pioneers of the young republic in historic preservation: Ali Saim Ülgen (1913–1963)), Restorasyon Konservasyon Çalışmaları Dergisi, 16 (2016), 3–20.

15 This conference was one of the most significant preservation developments of the inter-war  period but the impact of the conference was felt in Turkey only in the 1960s when Kuban translated the text for the preservation community. D. Kuban, ‘Restorasyon Kriterleri ve Carta Del Restauro’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 5 (1962), 149–51.

16 Official Gazette, Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu teşkiline ve vazifelerine dair Kanun, T.C. Resmi Gazete No. 7853 (2 Jul. 1951).

17 A.S. Ülgen, Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu ve Bu Teşekkülün Doğuşunu Hazırlayan Amiller ve Tarihçesi (The High Council for Immovable Historic Works and Monuments and History and Conditions of the Birth of This Organization), İstanbul: Salt Research Archive, n.d. Archive No. TASUDOC0994.

18 E.J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (New York, 2004).

19 M.Ö. Alkan, ‘Soğuk Savaş’ın Toplumsal, Kültürel ve Günlük Hayatı İnşa Edilirken’ (While Cold War's Social, Cultural and Daily Life Was under Construction), in M.K. Kaynar, Türkiye'nin 1950’li Yılları (İstanbul, 2015), 591–617. For the impact of the US–Turkey alliance in social movements (especially in terms of intensification of anti-communist campaigns), see T. Bora, Cereyanlar: Türkiye'de Siyasi İdeolojiler (Fluxes: Political Ideologies in Turkey) (İstanbul, 2017), 286–97.

20 C. Luke, A Pearl in Peril: Heritage and Diplomacy in Turkey (New York, 2019), 90–7.

21 D. Kuban, İstanbul, an Urban History: Byzantion, Constantinopolis, İstanbu (İstanbul, 1996).

22 H.B. Çeçener, Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu Yılları (interviewer: Ş. Özler) (İstanbul, 2003), 17.

23 Official Gazette, İstanbul Kapalıçarşısının tamir ve ihyası hakkında Kanun (The Law on Repair and Rehabilitation of İstanbul Kapalıçarşı), T.C. Resmi Gazete No. 8989 (25 Apr. 1955).

24 The use of lead in Ottoman imarets (pious complexes) was a symbol of the high status of the complex. As this material required constant maintenance, some imarets even had permanent lead-maintenance staff. In the 1930s, this lead was often either stolen or sold by the owner for income. Therefore, the use of cement instead of lead was already a common practice in the first half of the twentieth century. Cf. Altınyıldız, ‘The architectural’, 296.

25 HC Archives, Meeting no. 4, Decision no. 19, Date: 10 May 1952.

26 HC Archives, Meeting no. 15, Decision no. 155, Date: 10 Aug. 1953.

27 The pious foundations, vakıf and evkaf (plural) in Turkish, were the basic structures of Islamic societies. Vakıf simply means donating a property for public use for charity purposes. In the Ottoman Empire, vakıf complexes (imaret) both triggered urban sprawl (new districts would emerge around the vakıf complexes) and gave the city its Islamic character. See Mehmet Bayartan, ‘Osmanlı Şehirlerinde Vakıflar ve Vakıf Sisteminin Şehre Kattığı Değerler’, Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları, 10 (2008), 157–75; Ömür Bakırer, ‘Vakfiyelerde Binaların Tamiratı ile İlgili Şartlar ve Bunlara Uyulması’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 10 (2006), 113–26. In the eighteenth century, the vakıf institution started to deteriorate, and lost its dominance through the nineteenth century. See Altınyıldız, ‘The architectural’, 282.

28 In the Republican period, all vakıfs were reorganized under the VGM. Cf. Madran, ‘Cumhuriyetin’, 78.

29 Official Gazette, Aslinda Vakif Olan Tarihi Ve Mimari Kiymeti Haiz Eski Eserlerin Vakiflar Umum Müdürlüğüne Devrine Dair Kanun (The Law on Transfer of the Originally Vakıf-Owned Old Structures with Historic and Architectural Value to the General Directorate of Pious Foundations), T.C. Official Gazette No. 9705 (13 Sep. 1957).

30 HC Archives, Meeting no. 23, Decision no. 292, Date: 24 Jul. 1954.

31 A. Uz, ‘Bizantoloji Kongresi İçin Hazırlık’ (Preparations for the Byzantinology Congress), TTOK Belleteni, 161 (1955), 9. See also Anon., ‘Tamiri kararlaştırılan Camiler ve Mescidler (Mosques and masjids to be repaired)’, TTOK Belleteni, 161 (1955), 6. After the congress, the restorations continued for Fenari İsa Mosque, Tekfur Palace and Hagia Irene. Cf. Anon., ‘Türk ve Bizans yapısı eserler tamir ediliyor (Turkish and Byzantine period monuments are being repaired)’, TTOK Belleteni, 165–6 (1955), 4.

32 HC Archives, Meeting no. 30, Decision no. 369, Date: 22 Apr. 1955.

33 R. Janin, ‘Le Xe Congrès international d'Études byzantines (Istanbul, 15–21 septembre 1955)’, Revue des études byzantines, 13 (1955), 281–4. Janin underlines that the congress was overshadowed by this lynch mob; the traces of violence were still visible during the congress; registered participants (particularly Greek Byzantine scholars) did not attend, which resulted in a congress with a limited community.

34 HC Archives, Meeting no. 7, Decision no. 51, Date: 9 Sep. 1952.

35 ‘Rumelihisarı ve tarihi eserlerin restorasyonu’, TTOK Belleteni, 160 (1955), 9.

36 One of the most comprehensive studies on this period is M. Gül, The Emergence of Modern İstanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City (New York, 2009). Gül's work is the most distinguished research on this period because he showed that the projects of the Redevelopment were continuations of the İstanbul plan of Henri Prost, the Republican era urban planner of İstanbul. When the DP came to power, Prost's contract was immediately terminated; however, his plans continued to be implemented with exaggerated road spans and building heights. See also M. Gül, Architecture and the Turkish City: An Urban History of Istanbul since the Ottomans (London, 2017).

37 İ. Akpınar, ‘Menderes İmar Hareketleri Türkleştirme Politikalarının Bir Parçası mıydı?’, Arrademento Mimarlık, 290 (2015), 85–90; N. Altınyıldız, ‘Tarihsel Çevreyi Korumanın Türkiye'ye Özgü Koşulları (İstanbul 1923–1973)’, İstanbul doctoral dissertation, 1997; Kuban, İstanbul; D. Kuban, ‘Menderes ve İstanbul’, in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul, 1993), 389–92. Gül, Emergence, disagrees with these scholars and stresses that the critical arguments against Menderes-era constructions could with validity be applied to Henri Prost's projects as well. However, besides this criticism, all scholars underline that DP policies in the 1950s had an irreversible impact not only on İstanbul's historic character but also on Turkey's historic preservation approach.

38 A. Boysan, ‘50 Yıla Tanıklık: Sevgili Aydın Boysan'la Bir Kahve İçimi Sohbet’ (Witness for 50 years: a coffee talk with dear Aydın Boysan)’, Mimarlık, 320 (2004), 18–20.

39 Kuban, ‘Menderes’.

40 B. Boysan, ‘Halkla İlişkiler Stratejisi Olarak İstanbul'un İmarı: Politik Hummanın Silinmeyen İzleri’, in Türkiye Belediyeciliğinde 60 Yıl Uluslararası Sempozyum, Ankara, 23–24 Kasım 1990 (Ankara, 1990), 235–41, republished in İstanbul, 4 (1993), 84–9, at 84.

41 Anon., İstanbul'un Kitabı (The Book of İstanbul) (İstanbul, 1957).

42 Gül, Emergence, 167–71.

43 Anon., İstanbul'un Kitabı.

44 The migration of the rural population to cities was a major political concern for the Democrat Party. The Republican strategy had aimed for the modernization of society without demographic changes. This policy required keeping the villager in his village. Even though the construction of the new capital in Ankara conflicted with this goal, in the rest of the country this programme was implemented successfully through land reforms (i.e. The Law on Land Provision for the Peasants (Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu)) and construction of Halk Evleri (People's Houses) which brought a programme of education, and thus modernization of villagers/peasants. M.A. Karaömerlioğlu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta: Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köycü Söylem (There Is a Village Faraway: The Villager Discourse in the Early Republican Period) (İstanbul, 2006); M.A. Karaömerlioğlu, ‘Elite perceptions of land reform in early republican Turkey’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 27 (2000), 115–41.

45 İ. Tekeli, Cumhuriyetin Belediyecilik Öyküsü (1923–1990) (The Municipal History of the Republic) (İstanbul, 2009), 169.

46 T. Bora, ‘Türk Muhafazakarlığı ve İnşaat Şehveti – Büyük Olsun Bizim Olsun’ (Turkish Conservatism and Construction Passion – Bigger Is Better)’, Birikim, 270 (2011), 15–18.

47 Gül, Emergence; Boysan, ‘Halkla’, 89.

48 B. Ünsal, ‘İstanbul'un imarı ve eski eser kaybı’ (Development of İstanbul and the loss of old buildings), Türk Sanatı Tarihi Araştırma ve İncelemeleri, 2 (1969), 7–61.

49 Ülgen, Gayrimenkul.

50 H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford, 1974), 164–5.

51 P. Virilio, Speed and Politics (New York, 1974).

52 P. Bourdieu, ‘Rethinking the state: genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field’, Sociological Theory, 12 (1994), 1–18.

53 F. Tachau and M. Heper, ‘The state, politics, and the military in Turkey’, Comparative Politics, 16 (1983), 17–33.

54 Feroz Ahmad, Turkey: The Quest for Identity (London, 2014), 145–8.

55 Ibid., 119–24.

56 Ç. Keyder, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development (New York, 1987), 141.

57 Zürcher, Turkey.

58 A. Mumcu, ‘Eski eserler hukuku ve Türkiye’ (Historic Works Law and Turkey), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (1971), 41–76.

59 HC Archives, Meeting no. 146, Decision no. 3029, Date: 4 Feb. 1966.

60 HC Archives, Meeting no. 145, Decision no. 3014, Date: 26 Jul. 1965. The document refers to ‘a UNESCO training in Rome’ that took place between 10 January and 15 June 1966. This training was the course ‘The Study of Restoration of Monuments’, which the Rome Centre (ICCROM) took over from the university in this period.

61 In 1957, UNESCO organized a conference in Athens, The International Conference of Architects and Technicians of Monuments. At this conference, it became evident that international standards needed to be defined for the conservation movement. For this purpose, a Second International Conference of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments was organized in Venice in 1964. Turkey was represented at this meeting. Two architects, Doğan Kuban and Selma Emler, attended the meeting and 23 members (Turkey was not one of these members) drafted a document to define the standards of conservation. This document, the Venice Charter, was effectively the internationally updated version of the carta del restauro.

62 Members of this sub-committee were Kemali Söylemezoğlu, Feridun Akozan, Semavi Eyice and Ankara-based member Ekrem Akurga (Akurgal would participate only if necessary). HC Archives, Meeting no. 152, Decision no. 5268, Date: 21 Aug. 1966.

63 The members of this second sub-committee were professors in the Middle East Technical University, the VGM and two Ankara-based HC members (Orhan Alsaç and Aptullah Kuran). HC Archives, Meeting no. 152, Decision no. 5268, Date: 21 Aug. 1966.

64 HC Archives, Decision no. 3674, Doc., Date: 24 Sep. 1967.

65 C. Erder, ‘“Venedik Tüzüğü”: Uluslararası Tarihî Anıtları Onarım Kuralları’ (Venice Charter: International Repair Rules for Historic Monuments), Vakıflar, 7 (1968), 111–15.

66 B. Erdim, ‘Under the flags of the Marshall Plan: multiple modernisms and professional legitimacy in the cold war Middle East, 1950–1964’, in M. Ö. Gürel (ed.), Mid-Century Modernism in Turkey: Architecture across Cultures in the 1950s and 1960s (London, 2016), 113–40. Also in the archives, the foundation of METU is referred to as a positive development for architectural conservation in Turkey. HC Archives, Meeting no. 152, Decision no. 5268, Date: 21 Aug. 1966.

67 Erder, ‘“Venedik Tüzüğü”: Uluslararası Tarihî Anıtları Onarım Kuralları’.

68 Kuban, ‘Restorasyon Kriterleri’.

69 M. Glendinning, The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation (London, 2013).

70 Luke, A Pearl in Peril.

71 F.K. Yegül, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis: The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis (Cambridge, 1986).

72 HC Archives, Meeting no. 152, Decision no. 5268, Date: 21 Aug. 1966.

73 C. Erder, ‘Venedik Tüzüğü Tarihi Bir Anıt Gibi Korunmalıdır’ (The Venice Charter Should Be Preserved Like a Monument), METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 3 (1977), 190.

74 Erder, ‘“Venedik Tüzüğü”: Uluslararası Tarihî Anıtları Onarım Kuralları’.

75 Güçhan, N. Şahin and Kurul, E., ‘A history of the development of conservation measures in Turkey: from the mid 19th century until 2004’, METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 26 (2009), 19–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Council of Europe, The Declaration of Amsterdam (Brussels, 1975).

77 E. Madran and N. Özgönül, ‘Planlı Dönemde (1963–1981) Tarihsel Çevre'nin Korunması ve Değerlendirilmesinde Kamu'nun Yakalaşımı’ (The public sector's approach to preservation and valorization of historic environment during the planned period (1963–1981)), in Türkiye Birinci Şehircilik Kongresi, 2. Kitap (Ankara, 1982), 283–301.

78 E. Akcan, Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, and the Modern House (London, 2012).

79 Cf. F. Akozan, Türkiye'de Tarihi Anıtları Koruma Teşkilatı ve Kanuınlar (Laws and Institutions on Preservation of Historic Monuments in Turkey) (İstanbul, 1977). A significant section of this publication was on making the development of preservation systematic in France. Turkey's drawbacks are often compared with the French system. In addition, see also Ülgen's work Anıtların Korunması also makes similar comparisons throughout the book.

80 HC Archives, this document was titled Protokol, and was not given a document number.

81 This letter was signed by Tahsin Öz with the date 13 Aug. 1961. Even though the date of Öz's letter is the day that the new protocol was accepted, it is understood from the letter that in the earlier meetings, Öz had already highlighted the issue.

82 HC Archives, the document sent from the Ministry of Education to the HC for the revision of the Law No. 5805. The document number is 031./145.

83 Anon., ‘Yeni yapılacak camiler hakkında anıtlar yüksek kurulunun görüşü’, Mimarlık, 35 (1966), 2.

84 This system was first tested on the waterfront mansions on the shores of the Bosphorus. See HC Archives, Meeting no. 201, Decision no. 5505, Date: 11 Sep. 1970. Developed for the second category structures in the following meeting: HC Archives, Meeting no. 202, Decision no. 5595, Date: 10 Oct. 1970. See also Anon., ‘Boğaziçi İmar Plânı Raporu: İstanbul Belediyesi İmar Ve Planlama Müdürlüğü Tarafindan Hazirlanip Tasdik Ettirilen Boğaziçi Sahil Şeridi İmar Plani Raporu’, Mimarlık, 104 (1972), 26–8.

85 A total of 12 categories were defined, HC Archives, Meeting no. 288, Decision no. 10200, Date: 14 Jan. 1978. In 1974, the HC had already decided that a new system was needed for a faster decision-making system, because in 1974 there were more than 600 files waiting on the shelves and it was a burden for both individuals and public and private institutions to wait for the HC to make their decision. HC Archives, Meeting no. 247, Decision no. 8050, Date: 14 Sep. 1974.

86 Luke, A Pearl in Peril, 154.

87 N. Zeren, ‘Kentsel Alanlarda Alınan Koruma Kararlarının Uygulanabilirliği: Türkiye'de Tarihsel Değerlerin Korunmasında Uygulanmakta Olan Yöntem Çerçevesinde Uygulayıcı Kuruluşların Görüşlerine Dayanan Bir Araştırma’ (Applicability of preservation decisions in urban areas: a research based on the views of practising organizations within the framework of the currently-being-applied method for preservation of historic values in Turkey), İstanbul doctoral dissertation, 1981.

88 O. Alsaç, ‘Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planlarının Yapılmasında Gözönünde Tutulması Gerekli İlkeler’ (Required principles to consider preparing KAİPs), O.D.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 4 (1978), 195–200.

89 As understood from the archival document presented in the next note, these recommendations were orally presented during the meeting by the general director of tourism, Aydın Kezer.

90 HC Archives, Meeting no. 294, Decision no. 10374, Date: 9 Jun. 1978.

91 HC archives, letter from Orhan Alsaç to the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Justice, Document No. 732–(4), Date: 28 Jun. 1977. In the letter, Alsaç noted that these cases were being considered equal to other cases, whereas in fact these crimes were committed against the whole nation by destroying buildings that were ‘tangible testimonies of the social – economic – cultural level of their period and now should be transferred to future generations in their best conditions’.

92 HC Archives, Meeting no. 298, Decision no. 10740, Date: 18 Nov. 1978.

93 HC Archives, Meeting no. 294, Decision no. 10376, Date: 9 Jun. 1978. In the UK, funds for historic preservation are managed through central state-controlled funds such as the National Lottery Fund. Even though it is not clear if the HC studied foreign regulations to make these recommendations, it is possible to suggest they did since HC members, as discussed above, followed international developments closely.

94 HC Archives, Meeting no. 301, Decision no. 10966, Date: 9 Feb. 1979.

95 Çeçener, Anıtlar.

96 Ibid., 57.

97 Keyder, Ç. (ed.), Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local (Lanham, 1999)Google Scholar.

98 Alsaç, Ü., Bir Türk Mimarının Anıları Etkinlikleri, Yaşamı: Orhan Alsaç (Memoires, Activities, Life of a Turkish Architect: Orhan Alsaç) (İstanbul, 1993)Google Scholar.

99 HC Archives, Meeting no. 324, Decision no. 12688, Date: 13 Mar. 1981.

100 Ülgen, Gayrimenkul.