IS THE SPATIAL CONSERVATION OF A HISTORICAL NEIGHBOURHOOD ALONE, ABLE TO MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE?

Rapid and unplanned urbanisation and its chaotic problems such as urban sprawl and ecological degradations have been phenomenal particularly in the agenda of developing countries. This process accentuated the pressure over the last three or so decades on heritage zones, hence cities were introduced to the term ‘sustainability’. The importance of both spatial and social-economic sustainability in co-ordination has increased extremely.

These concerns have taken place in the core of sustainability issues in global meetings such as the UN Earth Summits: Rio, Rio+10 and Rio+20 (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2011;UN, 2002).Indeed the issue is a major problem and furthermore when uncontrolled and unplanned urbanisation incorporates with the facts above, the consequences may be catastrophic (Jiboye, 2011).As long as urban sprawl and its rapid increase is a vital and persisting problematic issue (Haapio, 2012;Bolay, 2012) and continues, it seems that the concept of sustainability will remain in the agenda of not only local but also global institutions such as UN and UN-Habitat.
The concept of sustainability, which was used for the first time in forestry in 1713 has evolved since.Most of the researchers and institutions (Jenks and Dempsey, 2005;UN, 2012;Farreny et al., 2010;Rasoolimanesh et al., 2011;Lotfi 2009) agree that while the term is defined and connected only with the environment now it is explained with a comprehensive term (Ahmed, 2012;Johnson et al., 2004) undertaking not only the environment but also the social, economic, cultural and governance aspects of cities (Warner, 2002;Bolay, 2012).One definition is explained as fulfilment of basic human needs for either today or the future (GhaffarianHoseini, 2012).Another definition is "to maintain well-being over a long period" made by Kuhlman and Farrington (2010).However the original definition of the term was defined by the World Commission in the report named Brundtland in 1987, stating that it is to meet "the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Winston, 2009) and equity is an essential part of sustainability (Meter, 1999).Crabtree (2005) also states that the resilience of a social system can only provide sustainability by highlighting the vital role in sustainability of social sustainability.
Reaching sustainability in cities requires more effort in local levels such as neighbourhoods.The most crucial phenomena for the cities, perhaps, are based on whether or not their units are sustainable.That is to say, a city cannot provide benefits to overall sustainability should their components not be found sustainable (Choguill, 2008).Hence, neighbourhoods, as the major components of the cities acting as the frontline in the sustainability battle, are extremely important at the urban management level.Neighbourhoods, therefore, are the vital levels in implementing the sustainable development programmes because they are the coordinator and core of the sustainable development process (Symes and Pauwels, 1999).
The main goal of sustainable neighbourhoods is to form neighbourhoods providing resilient places where the environment is protected (Saville-Smith, 2008).It is also to design a framework for locals that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable (Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, 2009;Ahmed, 2012).The concept consisting of excessively complicated and compacted components (Symes and Pauwels, 1999;Bijoux et al., 2008) requires a mechanism that will bring and hold the components together with its rules and procedures in order to reach sustainability, which is management (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2011) or in another words community engagement (Momeni et al., 2011).This is taking out the foreground importance of governance in neighbourhoods trying to implement the sustainable process.
The rapid urbanisation process and its chaotic problems have accentuated the pressure on the heritage zones including local cultural identities in certain cities (Nasser, 2003).As a result of this, heritage zones have been transformed to a strange place, which could not reflect their original identities and vernacular built environment.Heritage conservation is to preserve the heritage (Chohan and Ki, 2005) from internal and external risks dealing with "rejuvenation" and "revitalisation" (Ng et al., 2001) by focusing on social, economic, environment and governance aspects of sustainability.It is also defined as a comprehensive and integrated conservation process dealing with the context of strategic spatial planning focusing on preservation and sustaining of social-cultural diversity and ensuring effective economic development (Özcan, 2009).
In recent decades the idea 'heritage conservation' and implementations has become more popular in developing countries (Pendlebury, 1999;Delafons, 1997).In Turkey, the issue was given serious consideration in the 1960s.The mosques, madrasahs, khans 'han' and covered bazaars, Turkish bathrooms 'hamam' and tombs have been protected but their close environment has been taken for granted.Today Turkey has effective laws and regulations, as some developed countries implementing their legislations successfully, in particular the Law on the Protection of Deteriorated Cultural Heritage through Renewal and Reuse providing an effective mechanism for local authorities to prepare and implement projects in historical neighbourhoods (Porter et al., 2011).However, the same Turkey cannot reflect the same success to its historical and cultural heritage zones due to lack of application of the legislations effectively and other external factors such as uncontrolled urban sprawl, urban regeneration and disaster risks (Şey, 2003;Karaman and İslam, 2012).This paper has been prepared based on the recent research performed by the author focusing on the Bey neighbourhood -the oldest historic neighbourhood within the historic city centre of Gaziantep (Figure 1) formerly known as Aintab in Turkey, which hosted Armenian and Jewish communities until the 1950s.The paper emphasises the strong relationship between sustainability of historic spaces and its social sustainability.Namely: Can spatial sustainability of a historic neighbourhood ensure its social sustainability simultaneously?
The overarching objective of the research was to put forward the transformation occurring in the social characteristics after street renewal and restoration work performed in the neighbourhood.The paper also seeks to find out what kind of transformation has been experienced in the social characteristics after the street renewal project implemented by the municipality in the name of sustainability.The comparisons of the neighbourhood in the context of before and after the project are performed through the use of data collected from the interviews, questionnaires, thematic maps and photos.
The research is based on recent qualitative and quantitative data obtained through participant observation and in-depth interviews with the executive level of officials of Gaziantep metropolitan municipality, real-estate agencies, the administrator of Bey Neighbourhood and the locals.A survey consisting of questionnaires intending to analyse the existing socio-economic and cultural dynamics of the neighbourhood in administrative decisions, was conducted in 2012 with 74 local household members (22% of total population), chosen randomly from each street in the neighbourhood.The questionnaire was prepared based on the basic components of sustainability.It consisted of 8 main parts and each part covers its unique questions.These parts range from information about the family members to social, cultural, economic, environmental, and safety.

THE CASE STUDY: BEY NEIGHBOURHOOD, GAZIANTEP
Gaziantep is located in the South East of Turkey and the North of Aleppo.The city has the strategic ancient trade routes such as the Silk Road and has been inhabited since the early 4 th millennium BC (Figure 2).It was one of the stronghold cities in the region and had guarded the Syrian-Byzantine border at that time.Even though Turks conquered it for the first time in 1183, the city changed hands amongst various invaders until the early stages of the 16 th century.Bey Neighbourhood, which was formerly known as "Kayacık", is a traditional, residential neighbourhood situated within Gaziantep's cultural heritage zone (Figure 3).The neighbourhood consisted of people brought from outside of the city between the 11 th and 14 th Centuries and obtained its name "Bey" from the Turkomen tribes (Ünal, 1997).In this period the main characteristic of the neighbourhood was that even though it mainly consisted of houses there were also places of worship belonging to Christians such as St. Mary, Anglican and Kendirli Churches.Existence of so many churches in the neighbourhood, occupying a much smaller area when compared to Gaziantep, proved that an important number of minority Christians also lived there (Gül, 2005).
In the Ottoman period neighbourhoods formed based on their religious characteristics (Şahin and Işık, 2011).Communities having different religious backgrounds lived together in Gaziantep.Figure 4 below illustrates not only these religious neighbourhoods but also reflects that the Bey neighbourhood in the early years of its existence was a place where the minority people lived as majority (Gaziantep Analitik Etüt Raporu, 2009).Religious buildings played a vital role in forming neighbourhood's spatial characteristics.Since the formation of Gaziantep, first, religious characteristics such as a mosque, church, or synagogue was built in the neighbourhood.Accordingly settlement was developed around these buildings (Figure 5).In particular, mosques were not only worship places but were also the administration offices of neighbourhoods in the Ottoman period (Kanlı and Alpdoğan, 2012).Before 1910, while the neighbourhood consisted of Armenian people, today the neighbourhood has exposed to migration pressure and also experienced serious user change.According to the 16 th Century sources of the Ottoman Empire, in 1536, while the population of Gaziantep was 9288, Bey "Kayacık" neighbourhood consisted of 48 households and approximately 240 people (Gül, 2005).Today Gaziantep has 1.753.596inhabitants and Bey neighbourhood consists of 1.342 inhabitants (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2012) in 15,05 Ha (Gaziantep Analitik Etüt Raporu, 2009).
Basically we could say that the city of Gaziantep consists of two main heritage zones (Figure 6).While the first zone is identified as a traditional commercial zone sheltering many cultural heritages such as the castle, khans, Turkish baths, mosques, covered bazaars and houses, the second zone, which is a traditional residential area, consists of mostly large plots with courtyard houses (Figure 7), which are ostentatious when compared to the first zone houses, sheltering the Armenian population in the past.On the other hand the houses in the second zone's neighbourhoods close around the castle, were chosen by Muslim and Jewish communities.In both zones there are 57 heritage buildings consisting of 22 mosques and masjids, 17 khans, 8 Turkish baths, 2 covered bazaars, 2 museums, 2 coffeehouses, 1 tomb, 1 coppersmiths bazaar, 1 church and 1 castle functioned as the focal point in terms of defence (Gaziantep Analitik Etüt Raporu, 2009).The stone buildings, stone courtyard walls, courtyard gate and building gate, lattice windows, dovecote windows "kuş tağası" in both zones come forward as the dominant signs (Figure 8).In addition to these characteristics organic street network containing narrow streets and cul-de-sacs are remarkable.There are many commercial buildings such as khans and covered bazaars and mosques in the 1 st zone unlike the other zone.Due to its unique architectural characteristics, the neighbourhood has been taken under protection.It has 18 streets, 5 of which are cul-de-sacs.The spatial characteristics of housing consist of mainly a courtyard system (Figure 9a and 9b) having high outer walls built with traditional stones (Figure 10) and are moving and nested characteristics.This caused them to become organic street network (Figure 11) as in the Ottoman cities.The final effort of the metropolitan municipality in the attempt to sustain and protect the vernacular architectural fabric of the neighbourhood was a project named "The Bey Neighbourhood Street Renewal Project" including certain streets such as Hanifoğlu, Tepe, Noter, Eski Sinema and Kayacık (Figure 11).It was prepared by the metropolitan municipality and implemented by the Ministry of Culture in 2008 (Figure 12).The main aim of the project was to ensure peace and happiness, make the spatial environment inhabitable and develop community awareness.Prior to renewal works there were 4 or 5 cafés and 1 museum, now there are 9 cafés, 3 boutique hotels, 3 art centres, 4 museums and 1 public building excluding dwellings.The roofs and facades of these dwellings and 9 cafés have been renewed and strengthened (Gaziantep Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı Koruma Uygulama ve Denetim Bürosu, 2012).
In recent years, the population of the city of Gaziantep has boomed with the intensive increase in industrial investments.Consequently the fast growing population, with the contribution of migration, accelerated the pressure on the historic city centre and this caused the degeneration of historic buildings and characteristics.A dual-concept was formed in the neighbourhood.The neighbourhood now consisted of new but poor quality buildings and historic buildings.
In the neighbourhood, while the historic buildings have been protected in general, on the other hand, some of the buildings, transformed functionally from housing to commercial (Figure 13), have been changed dramatically due to the lack of implementation, authorisation and urban development pressure (Gül, 2005).The expansion process of the historical urban spaces in Gaziantep may be emphasized based on these facts of the periods.First, between 1960 -64, the change in the historic urban fabric began with the separation of families.Previously, as families lived together in the same house, later, children wanted to live separately hence built another house in the same courtyard or alternately the owners wanted to expand (Figure 17) their buildings by adding extensions for new tenants.This resulted in changes in social and economic life in the neighbourhood.During the process of change the building owners having high-income moved to contemporary buildings in new settlement areas.The low-income groups took their place and thus in connection with the user changes, the neighbourhood today is known as a place where low-income individuals live.(Uğur, 2004).

FINDINGS AND EVALUATIONS
After World War II, the rapid urbanisation trend experienced all over Turkey also reflected onto Gaziantep.While the population increased slowly at that time, after 1950, in parallel to the migration wave from rural to urban areas, due to the industrialisation process in Turkey, the population boomed.Thus, squatter houses surrounded the city and a different urban identity evolved at the peri-urban and the inner of Gaziantep.All these transformations also affected Bey neighbourhood and its user profile.After 1990, the city continued to get extensive migration due to the violence experienced in the southeast region of Turkey.Today the city is sheltering many industries and describes itself as an industrial town.
Based on the survey, interviews and observations performed, the following findings have been reached and evaluated under the following titles in the context of the deterioration experienced in Bey neighbourhood.

Urban Spatial Fabric
In accordance with the rapid urbanisation process, one of the deteriorations experienced was within the plots.The neighbourhood has plots with traditional buildings, having a unique courtyard system, which were built with traditional materials such as 'Keymıh' and 'Havara' stones (Figure 18).As the consequence of urbanisation pressure, the population density started to rise due to the supplementary characteristics in the courtyards with low cost structural technology based on existing user demands.These characteristics harm the original fabric (Figure 17, 19).In addition they also deteriorate the courtyard originality causing visual pollution.There are some buildings which are so desperate in terms of quality and liveability that 71% of the people surveyed want to have their houses renovated (Figure 20

Urban Social-Economic Fabric
The major problem causing socio-economic deterioration is directly related to the user profile changes experienced in the neighbourhood.In parallel to these changes, the socio-economic characteristics of the unit have also begun to transform.As the first users of the neighbourhood reflected the urban identity, on the other hand, the new users reflect the urban-rural identity causing duality.
There are certain factors affecting the changes in the user profile.One factor is that the historic buildings cannot meet today's expectations and needs.40% of participants are not satisfied with their houses and due to their low level of income they cannot move to a home with better conditions even though 42% wish to.
Another indicator is that the neighbourhood is preferred by locals (15%) because it is close to their workplace whereas the second priority for locals (11%) is that rent is cheap.It is important because it portrays the socio-economic characteristics of the locals consisting of mostly artisans and labourers in terms of the changes in the user profile.In the past while the neighbourhood was preferred by the rich Armenian minority groups, today it portrays a picture where mostly low-income people live.
We can additionally say that the aesthetical and Environmental factors, lack of green areas and insufficient schools including sport areas, medical services, narrow and organic formed streets causing traffic problems and insufficient car parking spaces have also triggered the changes in user profile.
In general, the percentages of the gender of the people who participated in the survey are close (Female 51%, Male 49%) and most of them were born in Gaziantep (87%) (Figure 25).When we look at the age distribution (Fig. 26), we can see that 31% of the participants consist of a young group (0-14), 64% is the working age and 5% of people are the elderly (65 and over).Even though the neighbourhood has a big working age percentage, in fact, only 38% of people work in the unit.This is one of the significant indicators showing the low economic level of the locals.In addition, the education level is also quite low.Approximately 70% completed primary school only, and 13% are university graduates.
The participation of the locals in any kind of cultural activity or event in the last year is drastic.Opera and ballet are the activities that the locals were not involved in at all.Approximately 20% did not go to a theatre, cinema, museum, exhibition and concert.The neighbourhood is also weak regarding socio-cultural activities.
Turnover ratio of residency is also high.While the percentage of people living in the same house in the last year is 11%, the figure for the last 5 years is 20%.Another indicator showing us the changes in the user profile is the home ownership status.In the past residents were also homeowners.At present the ratio has halved to 52%.This indicator is also important in showing the negative changes experienced in the socio-economic characteristics leading to the changes in urban identity.40% of participants are also unhappy with poor quality housing and facilities and 42% seriously consider moving out (Figure 27).The employment status (Figure 28) shows that while only 38% are employed, 19% are retired and 21% are unemployed, 15% are housewives and the rest comprise of children and students.The workforce consists of mostly lowincome self-employed residents (71%) and government employees (14%).

Figure 28: Employment Status of Survey Participants
The unit also suffers from insufficient open spaces including playgrounds.33% of children play at their home courtyards, approximately 30% on the streets and 11% in vacant plots.It is difficult to produce playgrounds in the unit, as the neighbourhood is a historic area.This makes it a difficult area for children to grow up in the context of sustainability.
The survey also unveils other complaints of the participants.Approximately 35% complain about insufficient green areas.19% of participants suffer from inadequate safety and security.Additionally, 11% want to have a carparking facility and 15% complain about the lack of educational buildings such as primary schools.Besides the complaints regarding the inadequacy of infrastructure, which is 11%, the inadequacy of medical services is voiced by 8% (Figure 29).When looking at the neighbouring relations, even though 60% find it adequate, this ratio does not reflect the desired level when considering the traditional Turkish neighbouring relations.
Regarding economic issues, one of the handicaps for the locals in terms of obtaining economic revenue is the high courtyard wall interrupting the communication between customer and workplace.At the time when the main function was only housing for these buildings, after street restoration works, they have changed their functionality to meet tourism.Hence due to the structural features of the plots having courtyard system, cafés and boutique hotels are the only functional elements that take place in the transformation process.

The administrator claims:
"After street renewal and restoration works, tourists have started to come only to see renovated buildings and streets without resting or spending any money due to the lack of facilities which meet their demands.He also claims that restoration works have been continuing for three years.Therefore the locals have not been able to benefit from restoration works yet." In addition to this, some locals claimed that they could only get licences for running cafés, hotels and associations and not for restaurants and live music.

Safety and Security
When dealing with the major problems in terms of those who live in the neighbourhood based on the survey and interviews, we can see that the most voiced problem is security and safety (43%) as also pointed out by Saleh (1997) who claims these issues have been the core of the urban life of Muslim communities.
With restoration works, in parallel to the changes in the user profile, the property ownerships have changed hand or experienced changes in functionality from housing to tourism.With the land fluctuation experienced, this caused many dwellings to be abandoned.Hence in this process, the abandoned dwellings became a place of shelter for those with bad habits such as sniffing, hashish smoking and drug use.
In parallel to functionality changes, the number of outsiders has risen due to the cafés and boutique hotels.According to the participants, the lack of a police station is also another factor affecting the rise in the crime rates.While 63% think that crime rate is rising, 30% believe that it is safe to go outside at nights.According to the administrator, instead of bringing tourism to the neighbourhood, café and hotels having poor quality have brought to the area their unique problems.After restoration works, some of the locals moved out due to the negative consequences of the café and hotels (Figure 30).Crime rates have risen (Figure 31) due to sniffers, hashish smokers and drug users.Sniffers have caused the crime rates to rise due to acts of robbery, theft etc.The hotels have become a place for illegal acts including prostitution, which has brought many bad influences on the locals.In addition, high volume music and outsiders have irritated and scared the locals.Some of the locals have decided to move, while there were approximately 5000 people in the unit, currently there are only between 1000-1500 people living there.This is one of the significant indicators showing the change in the user profile of the neighbourhood.
Fluctuation experienced in the increase of the value of property is another issue in terms of heritage conservation.What is expected in general is that the value of the property should increase after renovation.However, according to local real-estate agencies, property values have not shown major increases even though most of the streets have been renewed.Although there may be many reasons for this, it is considered that the transformation experienced in socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the neighbourhood plays a significant role.

The administrator claimed:
"As soon as street renovation works began, land fluctuations started, a businessman immediately purchased more than fifty dwellings.However these dwellings are still vacant and have become dilapidated.Therefore locals are afraid to go pass these buildings because they harbour sniffers and drug users.The number of theft incidents has also risen." The following crime rates (Gaziantep Police Department, 2013) verify the comments of the administrator and locals.

Lack of Good Governance
Even though good governance is one of the vital key factors for sustainability, the neighbourhood is away from reflecting that phenomenon.Now, the neighbourhood has perhaps experienced the worst consequences of lack of good governance.
The administrator believes that the restorations have not reached their goal.He claimed that: Approximately 15% of locals do not know who the administrator is.This is a considerable percentage for neighbourhoods in Turkey having low population.On the other hand, 45% are not aware of the works performed or to be performed in the unit.When we asked the locals whether or not they wanted to have a say in decisions regarding the neighbourhood, 80% said 'yes'.
With regards to the communication between the metropolitan municipality and the administration of the neighbourhood, we can say that the communication between the parties is insufficient.One reason for this is that they are from different political parties having different ideologies.Mutual prejudices harm the neighbourhood.While the administrator blames the municipality for the insufficient communication, on the other hand the municipality claims that it has not received a positive response regarding the issues from the administrator.Hence the administrator is perceived as a person who is trying to prevent investments to the unit.This makes the situation more complex and obstinate.Now, the communication between parties is almost at a stop.The administrator states that he wasn't even been informed of the completion date of the works.Perhaps the most important thing is, he claims; "The metropolitan municipality mayor has not come to the unit and has not asked the demands of locals".
The communication between the municipality and the locals is also inadequate.Although the municipality tries to improve the situation through communication tools such as bulletins, newsletters so on, it is not possible to say that they are efficient because it is only a one-way communication.Local participation in local decisions is almost non-existent.Locals and also the administrator agree.Only 11% say that they are aware of the investments realized in the neighbourhood by the metropolitan municipality.Another indicator is that approximately 65% are not aware of the decisions regarding the development plan or investment decisions.

CONCLUSION
One of the major problems of conservation work carried out in Turkey is the lack of a holistic approach.In addition, political and populist approaches including insufficient local awareness and good-governance may cause a chaotic situation in historical places in the urban fabric.
Street restoration projects do not reach their main goals, even though they desire to improve the local community's liveability and life conditions, because they are not part of a holistic approach.
In parallel to this, although conserving a heritage area requires social, cultural, economic and good-governance dimensions as well as architectural aspects, the street renewal concept in Turkey deals only with the spatial fabric of the space.Whereas a holistic plan and programme approach to historical sites would be an unequivocally adequate way in providing sustainability and preventing deterioration.Hence street renewal and restoration legislations and regulations in Turkey should be rearranged.That is to say, architectural work should not only focus on the elements of the facade and street, but also be connected with the technical regulations assisting the architectural and infrastructural problems for buildings in heritage zones.
The concept of "State", reflecting an organisation forming and guiding the community, until recent years has changed in developed countries.Communication-oriented and public participation aspects have taken the place of the processes that consist of solid management style forming the behaviours of the community.
The lack of public participation in decisions, regardless of the level of management system, may lead to unsustainability.In this case, the importance of conserving heritage becomes more prominent.Heritage conservation in Turkey unfortunately has not reflected adequate success in the context of sustainability because conservation matters have only been dealt with amongst particular groups such as bureaucracy, academics, and administrations disregarding local community.Participation in the decision making process at local level has not been transformed into a common-culture.
As a result, the street renewal project in Bey neighbourhood has been planned and implemented depriving community involvement.That is why the neighbourhood is now struggling for life and suffering in terms of sustainability perhaps just due to the lack of good-governance.
In parallel with the urbanisation pressure experienced in Turkey, Gaziantep and its historical centre Bey neighbourhood, was exposed to population density increase, thus under the pressure, historical fabric has begun to deteriorate due to lack of knowledge, planning, programming, control mechanisms and management skills of the metropolitan municipality.The municipality has also conduced to increase the density of population with development plans produced under the pressure of the rentiers, although this is a paradox in the historical zone.Hence, in parallel with the profile changes the usage of plot has changed and some of the historical buildings have vanished or deteriorated.
While supporting and encouraging traffic in the heritage zone is a controversial issue in today's world, widening streets in order to ease traffic density is a complete contradiction.Some of the axes have been opened to traffic and consequently historical buildings have been destroyed.
Regarding street renewal work not serving sustainability, they are totally far from restoration in the real sense.They are like face lifted houses that don't serve their purpose and sustainability.
Another important issue is the municipality's disregard for community involvement, which has resulted in the transformation of the buildings housing purpose to commercial, making them unsuitable.This has made the area not liveable and/or sustainable.It is also possible to say that the transformation process can induce the misperception effacing the original lifestyle of the neighbourhood.
The lack of public awareness of the local community regarding heritage conservation is another handicap.Community awareness is falling and becoming more difficult because of the education level of the current profile.The new users do not have enough sense of protection and public awareness with respect to heritage conservation.
In conclusion, sustainability is a challenging process requiring comprehensive and holistic point of views and in this process; good governance is a vital factor in achieving success.Heritage conservation of the spatial fabric solely doesn't mean that it will assure sustainability of the neighbourhood when disregarding their major components.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: The Location of the City of Gaziantep in Turkey

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Historical Expansion of the City Centre

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: The Neighbourhoods within the Cultural Heritage Zones of the City Centre and Bey Neighbourhood

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: The Neighbourhoods Having Different Religious Background around the Castle.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Development around the Religious Buildings (Example of Kendirli Church)

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: Land Use Based on Ground and 1 st Floors.(Red and reddish colours indicate the commercial use, yellow and yellowish colours indicate residential use)

Figure 7 :
Figure 7: Main Cultural Heritage Zones of the City of Gaziantep

Figure 8 :
Figure 8: The Basic Characteristics of the Buildings

Figure 10 :
Figure 10: A Courtyard (right) and its Main Entrance and High Outer Wall (left)

Figure 11 :
Figure 11: Street Network of Bey Neighbourhood and the Streets on Which the Project was Implemented

Figure 12 :
Figure 12: The Street Renewal Project

Figure 13 :Figure 14 :
Figure 13: Land Use of Bey Neighbourhood (Up: Based on Ground Floor.Down: Based on 1 st Floor.)

Figure 17 :
Figure 17: The Phases of Expansion

Figure 18 :
Figure 18: Plot Sizes in Bey Neighbourhood

Figure 19 :
Figure 19: Consistency with Traditional Fabric

Figure 20 :
Figure 20: Quality of Buildings

Figure 21 :
Figure 21: Views of Buildings in Bad Condition

Figure 22 :
Figure 22: Construction System of the Buildings

Figure 25 :
Figure 25: Gender and Birthplace of Survey Participants

Figure 27 :
Figure 27: Dwelling Satisfaction of Survey Participants

Figure 29 :
Figure 29: Complaints Regarding Community Facilities Based on the Survey Participant

Figure 30 :
Figure 30: Some Cafés in the Neighbourhood

Figure 31 :
Figure 31: The Number of Incidents in Bey Neighbourhood between 2002-2012

"
The restoration works have been carried out for tourism purposes.Even though the main aim of these works was to attract touristic activities, unfortunately the project has failed due to insufficient communication amongst parties."