No bridging fight over Istanbul's Golden Horn

If a new bridge is constructed over the Golden Horn with the plans approved in 2005, Istanbul's historic peninsula might be downgraded from a World Heritage Site to a place on the List of World Heritage in Danger. DAILY NEWS photo, Hasan ALTINIŞIK

The controversy that has delayed construction of a new bridge over Istanbul’s famous Golden Horn shows no sign of abating, with the plans, intended to ease traffic, criticized on both aesthetic and cultural grounds.
Perhaps the greatest outcry has been over the design of the bridge, which features two shiny, 55-meter-tall towers with horn-like shapes, a nod to the waterway’s English name that detractors say will ruin the historical silhouette created by landmark architectural works such as the nearby Ottoman-era Süleymaniye Mosque.
“The planning of that area took 150 years and is the result of an extremely well-considered architectural design. This bridge is not compatible with that view at all,” said famous historian Cemal Kafadar, who teaches at Harvard University.
During an award ceremony last year, Kafadar told Turkish President Abdullah Gül that the bridge, which will connect Şişhane, the last stop on a metro line, to the Süleymaniye area, needs to be re-planned lest it damage Istanbul’s historical texture.
Members of UNESCO’s Cultural Heritage Committee are also among the critics of the design for the span across the Golden Horn, known as the Haliç (gulf) in Turkish. They warned Istanbul officials during a committee meeting in July that constructing the bridge using the current plans, which the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality approved in 2005, could cause the city’s historic peninsula to be downgraded from a World Heritage Site to a place on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
“The World Heritage Committee believes the cable-stay structures [the horn-shaped towers] might have the potential to irreversibly impact the outstanding universal value and integrity of the site,” Francesco Bandarin, director of the UNESCO World Heritage Center, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
“The three other bridges over the Haliç [Golden Horn] have solved their [design] problems without any towers. I wouldn’t choose to include towers on this one either,” architect Ömer Kanıpak said.
“We cannot progress with this kind of mentality,” architect Korhan Gümüş told the Daily News. “Officials want to interpret everything metaphorically. Just because it is called the Golden Horn, we cannot build giant horns there and ruin the view.”
The bridge’s architect, Hakan Kıran, disputes critics’ claims. “We have done many studies with local and foreign experts. The bridge will not affect the historic silhouette at all,” he said. The architect added that he participated in the meeting last year of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and received praise for his project.
“Our first project included 82-meter-high towers but after the warnings of UNESCO and the Turkish Conservation Board, we reduced this to 55 meters. The criticisms are exaggerated,” he said.

Lack of transparency in decision-making process

But according to Kanıpak, the main problem with the bridge is not its design, but the lack of transparency about the design process behind it. “The most important issue here is not the towers, but the decision process of how to build a bridge right in the middle of Istanbul,” he said. “How come this decision is kept from the public and made through a bidding process? Why was this person [Kıran] chosen as the architect of this bridge?”
People who live and work near where the bridge is being built seem more concerned about how the bridge will affect traffic, and the timetable for the project. Pointing out the construction near his electronics store in Istanbul’s Karaköy district, which he has run for more than 30 years, Murat Kaymaz said: “They are building a bridge as part of the metro system. I think it is really a good idea. It will help the flow the traffic.”
His friend Osman Tınar, who owns a fishing-gear shop, is curious when the bridge will be finished. “They have been talking about the bridge for so long. I wonder when it will be completed,” he said.
“Whether you find it aesthetic or not, the bridge will be a great solution to Istanbul’s traffic problem,” academic and city planner Murat Güvenç told the Daily News. “If the Turkish Conservation Board has approved it, why are we still discussing it?”
“Although the bridge considers the geological qualities of the city, it leaves out the cultural elements. Couldn’t they find another solution instead of digging right into the historical peninsula?” said city planner Eda Beyazıt from Istanbul Technical University.
“The authorities want to leave a glorious mark on everything,” said academic and columnist Cengiz Aktar, who writes for the Daily News. “But they might reconsider their plan depending on the UNESCO decision next month.”
UNESCO has charged Istanbul with preparing a new plan for Istanbul’s historic peninsula by February. The World Heritage Committee will examine the plan and discuss whether to keep Istanbul on the World Heritage List or move it to the List of World Heritage in Danger.