Urban and Regional Planning in Turkey by Ö. Burcu Özdemir Sarı & Suna S. Özdemir & Nil Uzun

Author:Ö. Burcu Özdemir Sarı & Suna S. Özdemir & Nil Uzun
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030057732
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

7.5 Concluding Remarks

As is often noted in the discussions of large-scale project investments and their effect on archaeological heritage and multi-layered historic city centres, one of the main problems in planning is the low quality of spatial data that is used to steer the decision-making processes in archaeological heritage management. Various data sets are used by different institutions with varying formats, although none of these complex data sets provide planners with three-dimensional data. Potential archaeological sites that require investigation through archaeological methods are under the responsibility of the local museums and so are not fully or professionally documented. Moreover, there are lack of records even from the recent past, meaning that assessments of archaeological resources based on fieldwork can be difficult. Furthermore, data collected from fieldworks are not integrated within the urban planning process.

Meanwhile, different stakeholders with varying interests seek to steer the decision-making process to maximise their own benefit, and urban and regional planners have to cope with a multitude of issues, aiming to conserve archaeological heritage while allowing appropriate development. In the urban context, archaeological findings provide historical data about the evolution of the city form over time. It is highly likely that below city centres, development zones or agricultural areas, several archaeological layers may be found, and so development strategies should be established related to land use, density or even basements due to the real archaeological potential, rather than being limited by the available data or the boundaries of registered archaeological sites . The most recent methods and legislation come under the control of local authorities or institutions like municipalities or museums, who lack the appropriate capabilities for the management of archaeological heritage.

Furthermore, rigid legislation related to the preservation of archaeological sites leads to a fear of destroying archaeological remains, and so Grade I archaeological sites, especially in an urban context, are seen as restricted zones, while Grade III archaeological sites are evaluated as development zones that are controlled by museums. In addition, as a result of the low capabilities of local institutions, the time factor in the reporting, planning and project preparation of archaeological excavations is a significant problem.

As briefly mentioned above, the presentation of archaeological sites in a modern urban landscape is a challenging issue for planners, architects and archaeologists, among others. Williams (2015, 25) raised some very practical problems faced in the presentation of archaeological remains in modern urban setting, underlining the physical separation of archaeological remains form modern street levels. Accordingly, there are numerous strategies that can be followed in the presentation of archaeological remains in an urban setting, for example, archaeological parks, although other amenities and activities of daily life should be integrated into such approaches to provide visual perception and a sense of destination (Williams 2015, 35–36). This sense of destination may be exploited to create a visitor experience, but in any such situation, the archaeological remains of historic city centres in multi-layered towns and cities should be essential parts of daily life, as this will provide a sense of place, awareness and identity.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.