Swallowed by the urbanization: Spatial evolution of Adana Bağlarbaşı District

Vineyard (Turkish: bağ) culture is a common urban phenomenon in Çukurova region communities, which have strong ties with the land, due to the favorable climate and soil conditions. Adana's historic city center and some of the vineyard settlements to the north of this area lost their rural settlement characteristic and started to be built up as a result of Hermann Jansen's planning studies that started in the 1930s, and the city continued its development as planned towards the vineyard settlements (Turkish: bağlar) to the north. Although Gazipaşa, Ziyapaşa, and Namık Kemal Neighborhoods, which were examined within the scope of the study, were planned as a result of these planning studies, they were not built according to the plan. Thus, the implemented part of the Jansen Plan was defined by the railway line located to the south of these three neighborhoods. As a result, these three neighborhoods turned into an area where vineyards began on the periphery of the planned built - up areas and became known as Bağlarbaşı (starts of vineyard area). The aim of the study is to make a morphological analysis of the transformation of the three neighborhoods formed in the area where the vineyards, which previously had a rural settlement texture, disappeared as a result of the urbanization pressure that started in the 1950s, starting from 1950 to the present day, and to examine the process dynamics and to determine the general characteristics of the vineyard culture and houses in the study area. In the study area, morphological analyses were carried out by comparing aerial photographs from 1950, 1954, 1961, current maps from 1985 and 2019, zoning plans dated 1940, 1969 and current data. In addition, the transformation was documented with photographs from various archives and oral history research was utilized. Two vineyard houses in the area were surveyed to determine their spatial characteristics. The data obtained through the studies coincide with Marcel Poëte's assertion that "the memory of a city survives in the physical structure of that city". It has been determined that today's parcel boundaries, main roads, and streets, physical formations such as thresholds and reinforcements of the three neighborhoods bear traces of the period when the neighborhoods were vineyards and gardens. In the area, a small number of vineyard houses (cottages), which are in parallel with the typological characteristics of the traditional Turkish House, have survived to the present day, albeit in ruins.


Introduction
The 20th century can be seen as a turning point as large number of people migrated from rural to urban areas, especially with the industrialization movements. As seen in many countries, ruralurban migration movements accelerated in Turkey, especially in the 20th century. Turkey had a relatively steady period until the 1950s in terms of domestic migration mobility, and after the 1950s, migration movements increased especially to larger cities (Akyıldız and Ertürk, 2021). In Anatolia, which has a rich character in terms of urban settlement types, in the early years of the Republic, settlements with rural architectural characteristics are frequently encountered in regions other than traditional residential settlements in historical city centers. In these years, Adana was also surrounded by a rural settlement pattern around its historic city center. This study focuses on the urban transformation of some of the rural settlements (Bağlarbaşı area) in Adana city center as a result of the internal migration movements that started in Turkey in the 1950s.
Adana, with its vast and fertile plains, favorable climatic conditions and water basins, has been the scene of settlement throughout history. Traces of many civilizations from the earliest human settlements to the Hittites and Ancient Rome can still be traced in the city today. The city continued to develop in its birthplace during the Ramazanoğulları Principality (Turkish: Ramazanoğulları Beyliği, 14th-16th centuries) and later during the Ottoman Empire rule. By the 20th century, as a result of population growth and the new needs of the time, urban problems emerged that needed to be solved. Adana Municipality, in the light of the ideals of creating a modern city by taking into account the political interests of the time, made an agreement with the German City Planner and Architect Hermann Jansen in 1932 (Saban, 2009). Jansen produced the plans of the modern city, which was aimed to be built together with the settlement areas that developed in the historical process, based on the existing map prepared in 1918 during the French occupation years (Yıldız, 2020). According to the last known version of the urban plan in 1940, the historic city center was largely preserved and expansion was envisaged to the north, east and west of the existing city ( Figure 1).
Adana's historic city center and some of the rural settlements to the north of this area lost their rural character and started to be built up as a result of the planning activities, and the city continued to develop as planned towards the north (Figure 1). The neighborhoods of Gazipaşa, Ziyapaşa and Namık Kemal, which were examined in this article, were planned as a result of these planning activities, but were not built according to the plan (Figure 1, red marked area). Thus, the implemented part of the Jansen Plan was defined by the railway line on the southern border of these three neighborhoods. As a result, the three neighborhoods turned into an area of vineyards on the periphery of the planned built-up areas and the area became known as Bağlar/ Bağlarbaşı (English: vineyards/ start of vineyards), (Figure 2). After the 1930s, the Bağlar region, which had vineyard houses (cottages) in large plots of land, maintained its rural settlement character for about 25 more years.
By 1950, the plan up to the railway line and the main lines of the road network were almost completed. After that, as in the rest of Türkiye, the process of rural-urban migration accelerated and the morphological structure of the cities underwent serious changes even within a few years. This can also be confirmed by population statistics. In the period following the proclamation of the Republic, the city of Adana gained importance with industrial and agricultural policies and the population growth rate increased with a forward momentum. According to the first census conducted in 1927, the population was 72,652 people and reached 76,473 people in 1935 with very little progress. The population growth rate was 51.48% between 1945-1955and 54.1% between 1955-1960. Thus, the population reached 290,000 in 1960, 347,454 in 1970, 475,348 in 1975and 574,515 in 1980. In 1985, the population growth rate reached a record high of 60.5% and increased by more than 200,000 people in five years, reaching 777,554 people (Sönmez, 2012). From 1985 to today, as of 2022, the population has tripled to 2,265,888 people.
It is known that the plan prepared by Hermann Jansen in 1940 was prepared to accommodate a maximum of 105,000 people (Saban, 2017). However, Adana, one of the most prominent cities in Anatolia with its agricultural and industrial development, filled the population capacity of the planned areas in a short period of 10 years in the 1950s. Thus, the city of Adana continued its urban growth in a distorted manner on the peripheries of the Jansen plan under intense migration pressure. It took 26 years for a new or additional plan to be prepared. This plan, commissioned by the Bank of Provinces (Turkish: İller Bankası) to Bülent Berksan and Melahat and Ali Topaloğlu in 1966, was approved in 1969. However, by 1970, the population had already reached approximately 350,000 people and certain parts of these plans could not be implemented even today. Again, in these years, there was an increase in density in the sections built within the framework of the Jansen Plan and the area was almost completely demolished and rebuilt.
The 1938 cadastral maps show that the cadastral boundaries of Cemalpaşa and Kurtuluş, two of the four neighborhoods (Reşatbey, Cemalpaşa, Çınarlı, Kurtuluş) planned within the scope of the Jansen Plan, move northward and cover all three neighborhoods in the study area. Again, when these maps are analyzed, it is seen that the parcel functions of the region are mostly vineyards, vineyard houses (cottages) or gardens. This is reflected in the titles of the cadastral sheets. Namık Kemal Neighborhood is named Kurtuluşbağlar (Kurtuluşvineyards) and Ziyapaşa Neighborhood is named Cemalpaşabağlar (Cemalpaşavineyards). Again, when the relevant cadastral maps are examined, it is seen that the vineyard settlements continue around the Jansen Plan by becoming sparser. Names such as Döşemebağlar (Döşemevineyards), Zincirlibağlar (Zincirlivineyards), Karalarbucağıyolubağlar (Karalarbucağıyoluvineyards) continue to be used even today.
The vineyard culture in the three neighborhoods, on the other hand, remains vivid in the memories of people who are old enough and live or have lived in the region. According to the information obtained from the memoirs written by people who lived in the neighborhood, the vineyard settlements here are temporary places of residence where people come to cool off, especially in periods of hot weather. Various plants are grown here in large areas in preparation for winter. Fruit trees such as vineyards, figs, prickly pear, plums and seasonal vegetables were grown and made ready to be stored for a long time by various methods such as drying, pickling and salting. Molasses, tomato paste, pomegranate syrup and jam are also produced (Hız & Göçük, 2018;Gümüş, 2018;Çetin, 2018).
The aim of the study is to analyze the process dynamics and to determine the general characteristics of the vineyard culture and houses in the study area, by making a morphological analysis of the transformation process of Gazipaşa, Ziyapaşa and Namık Kemal Neighborhoods, which were formed in the area where the vineyards disappeared as a result of the urbanization pressure that started in the 1950s, while they had a rural settlement pattern in the north of the historical city center, starting from 1950.

Material and Methods
The materials of the study consist of aerial photographs from 1940, 1950, 1961, 1973, 1985, and current aerial photographs, as well as the as-built maps from 1965, 1985, 2007, and 2019, 1940, 1969, and current zoning plans, and photographs obtained from institutional and individual archives. The survey work carried out in the area is also among the tangible materials. In addition, the information obtained through field studies and oral history studies in the field constitute the materials from which user opinions are obtained. In addition to all these, architectural history, urban morphology studies, urban monographs, memoirs, and epistemological and methodological research on urban morphology are among the materials of the study.
While conducting morphological analyses of cities, conducting studies at the neighborhood scale is a very effective choice in terms of understanding the whole city. The city of Adana is composed of neighborhoods, each unique in its own way, with a deep-rooted agricultural and industrial history. The dynamics of each neighborhood can be quite different due to the regions they are associated with. Therefore, in order to obtain accurate and comprehensive data, many different methods and disciplines should be utilized.
The scope of the study is in the intersection of urban morphology and architectural history, as it is about examining the morphological change of neighborhoods and determining the transformation of vineyard houses (cottages). In this context, four different methods were applied to analyze the data obtained in the study area. The first of these is Lynch Analysis. With Lynch analysis, boundaries, roads, regions, reference points and nodal points were identified (Lynch, 1960). Secondly, morphological analyses were performed in three neighborhoods with the method developed by M. R. G. Conzen (1969). Morphological analyses were carried out by comparing the data of 1950, 1985 and 2019 in three periods, at intervals of approximately 35 years. In addition to these, survey studies were carried out in the neighborhoods and the typological characteristics of the vineyard houses were revealed. Finally, oral history research was verified and converted into data sets.

Borders -Roads
Gazipaşa, Ziyapaşa and Namık Kemal Neighborhoods in Seyhan District of Adana, which have been in the process of urbanization since the 1950s, were located on the outskirts of the city when they were first formed. The current borders of the neighborhoods are quite old. The south of the three neighborhoods is bordered by the Adana Mersin railway line. This border has not changed since 1911 when the new Adana train station was put into service (Şenyiğit, 2002). The eastern border of Ziyapaşa Neighborhood in the east of the area is the Seyhan River. While the border of Namık Kemal Neighborhood in the west of the area was the street known as Karaisalı Road, which is now called Mücahitler Street. Alparslan Türkeş Boulevard was opened to the west of the street as a result of the metro works that started in the 1990s, and the boulevard and the metro line became the western border of Namık Kemal Neighborhood. The irrigation canal, which is the northern boundary, is visible in the 1940 aerial photograph and the Jansen Plans, although the exact year of its construction cannot be determined. Therefore, the boundaries of the three neighborhoods were completely finalized in 1940 and there have been no major changes in these boundaries until today. Ahmet Remzi Yüreğir Street and Baraj Street, which form the boundaries between the neighborhoods, consist of the traces of the axes reaching to the historical city center as understood from the 1918 survey map. Today, Ahmet Remzi Yüreğir Street is interrupted by the railroad line, and 66035 Street was interrupted for many years for the same reason, but it was reunited with its historical axis with an underpass from Atatürk Street ( Figure 3).

Reference Points
When old photographs of the neighborhoods are examined, it is seen that there have been dominant reference points in the region for many years. The regulator bridge to the east, the irrigation canals built afterwards, the new railway line created with the commissioning of the new station in 1911 and the Demirköprü (English: Iron Bridge), which forms the river crossing of this line, and the Darüleytam building, which was built as an Armenian orphanage in the early 1900s, later used as a teacher's school and today as Adana Science High School, are the oldest reference points of the region. In the following years, Lütfiye Kısacık Primary School, built in 1963 when Lütfiye Kısacık donated her vineyard parcel, Borsa High School, built in the late 60s, and Ziyapaşa Secondary School, built in 1973, became important reference points. Bağlar Police Station, which is believed to have been built in the late 1960s, is one of the old reference points. Today, the Güzel Mosque, Nakkaşlar Mosque, Kaymakam Kalezade Mosque, Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Mosque, Zillidede Tomb and Makam Mosque can be added to these locations. Cemalpaşa Bridge, Özen Bridge and Kanalköprü also play an important role in people's experience of the city.

Nodes-Regions
The Bağlar District is rich in boundaries and reference points, and naturally has many nodal points. Beyond the nodes in the region, the region itself is one of the nodes of the city. In order to pass from the Jansen plan area to the north of the city, one has to pass through these nodes. As shown in Figure 3, the intersections of the boundary points in the region are all nodal points. The boundaries also clearly divide the neighborhoods into zones. Apart from these zones, the route with high density building stock can also be considered as a zone. Since the zoning works in the region have not been finalized for many years, the construction of new buildings is progressing point by point.

Visual History of the Region
When old aerial photographs and photographs are analyzed, it is seen that in the 1940s and 1950s, the irrigation canal located on the street known today as Kıyıboyu Street had a soil surface and double rows of eucalyptus trees were planted both to the north and south (Figure 4a). The 1950 aerial photograph shows that there are bridges known as Cemalpaşa Bridge and Kanalköprü at both ends of the area (where Karaisalı Road and Baraj Street intersect with the irrigation canal). Therefore, it is clear that these bridges were built before 1950. Figure 4a and Figure 4b show Cemalpaşa Bridge. In the 1960s, it is understood that the trees around the irrigation canal were cut down and the ground of the irrigation canal started to be covered with concrete ( Figure 4b).
In the 1960s, Bağlar Police Station was built, named after the residential identity of the area. Figure 4b shows a photograph of the police station under construction. According to the memoirs of Zeki Gümüş (2018), the police station was established to eliminate public order problems in Bağlar area as a result of the increasing population.
When the 1973 aerial photographs are analyzed, it is seen that the Jansen Plan area is largely built up, with only two large parcels not yet built up. These two parcels are today the regional offices of the State Railways and the Postal Organization. A photograph taken from the location of these parcels is shown in Figure 4c. When the photograph is examined, it is noticed that the approximately 1.5-kilometer Bağlar area behind the station and the railway line is built up in a rural texture. Looking towards the horizon line, it is seen that the green texture continues intensely. According to Gümüş (2018), vineyard houses and vineyards continue from this region to the Taurus Mountains. Looking in the opposite direction from where the same photograph was taken, the difference in the quality of construction between the two regions is clearly visible (Figure 4d).  By the 1980s, the rural settlement texture in the region had largely dissolved and building density increased. The cottages were completely destroyed in this period, unlicensed, unauthored shanty houses were built instead, and high-rise constructions started in places. In these years, the street texture has reached a state close to the present day.
When we come to the present day, it is seen that a holistic zoning plan implementation has not yet been put into effect in the region. It has been determined that the execution of most of the plan has been suspended by court decisions, and the zoning problem has not been solved for about 50 years. New constructions are progressing with point-by-point transformations, the urban transformation pressure and the 2.4 density plan pose a great threat to the low-density construction in the neighborhood, and it is seen that demolitions are carried out regionally. In all three neighborhoods, organically formed low-density streets, parcels with the remains of demolished houses, a few preserved vineyard parcels and high-density converted houses coexist.

1950
In 1950, when the morphological structure of the region is examined, a rural settlement texture consisting of vineyard houses located in large vineyard parcels is observed. The boundaries of the neighborhood formed in 1940 have not changed. The roads that crossed the railway line are Karaisalı Road and the roads known today as Baraj Avenue, which lead to the city center. Since Karaisalı Road has a weaker connection with the city center compared to Baraj Avenue, Ziyapaşa Neighborhood has more residential areas. The strong connection to the city center is thought to have led to an increase in building density ( Figure 5, grid 7E).
In 1950, it was determined that the dominant structures in the region were gasworks (Hız ve Göçük, 2018: 20), (Figure 5, grid 4F), and railway workshops, and three bridges were connected to the regions to the north of the irrigation canal ( Figure 5, grid C1, D6, D7). When the aerial photographs are examined, two dominant road traces running on the north-south axis in Ziyapaşa District are noticed ( Figure 5, grid 7, 8). When the aerial photographs of various dates are examined, it is seen that the river bed has changed over the years, and probably after the dam regulator was opened, the banks of the river were filled with alluvium. Again, from the aerial photographs, it is thought that there is a swamp structure in the region and these roads act as canals from time to time and the water of the river flows from here. For these reasons, there was no construction in this area. Although the area here was built in the following years, it has been declared as a disaster risk area today and this situation has been going on for about 20 years.
It was observed that the irrigation canal, which forms the northern line of the region, had an earthen surface in 1950 and there were double rows of eucalyptus trees both to the north and south. In the 1960s, all the trees were cut down within the scope of the concreting works of the canal surface, and it was understood that vineyard settlements continued to the north of the three neighborhoods in 1950 in a more sparse manner.

1985
As a result of the analysis of the region, it is understood that the Berksan-Topaloğlu plan, which was approved in 1969, was partially designed on the traces of vineyard parcels and existing construction ( Figure 5). It is seen that the river shores were planned as recreational areas and the main roads forming the boundaries of the neighborhoods were largely preserved. However, it is understood that this plan has not been implemented to a great extent ( Figure 6). The neighborhood was almost entirely developed organically and built-in free order. According to the oral history and literature research, it is seen that the residents of the region divided their vineyard parcels and sold them to their relatives since the 1950s, thus paving the way for construction. In 1985, when the rural settlement characteristic of the region completely disappeared, expropriations and demolitions started to be carried out to create Mustafa Kemal Paşa Boulevard, which can be read from the filled-empty diagram.

2019
The most recent existing maps of Adana City were prepared in 2019. In the light of these maps and the data obtained from the spatial address system, a parcel-street-building relationship diagram was created ( Figure 5). In the second half of the 20th century, the city became a center of attraction with the development of agriculture-based industry, and due to the increase in the number of motor vehicles and population, new streets were opened. The building heights on these streets increased (Saban, 2017). Between 1985 and 2019, the creation of Mustafa Kemal Paşa and Alparslan Türkeş Boulevards in the region is one of the most significant changes in the urban fabric. New bridges were also built to cross the irrigation canal. The largest urban gap in the area is the Water and Sewerage Administration compound in the Ziyapaşa neighborhood, which was formerly the site of water wells and now belongs to the Metropolitan Municipality.
Adana has rapidly metropolitanized thanks to external factors such as its geographical location and regional transportation network, and internal potentials such as its existing trained workforce and capital structure. However, due to the excessive increase in residential areas and the inability of the main roads to adequately carry vehicle and pedestrian traffic, some green areas have been rapidly concretized and growth has continued. It can be said that this growth tends to expand rapidly instead of developing (Yıldırım, 2010). In the Bağlar region, the green texture has rapidly disappeared and the region has been completely built up. Between 1985 and 2019, it was determined that the building heights increased on Mücahitler Avenue, Alparslan Türkeş Boulevard, Mustafa Kemal Paşa Boulevard, Baraj Avenue, and Ahmet Remzi Yüreğir Avenue. Today, the buildings in the alleyways are being demolished one by one, and are waiting for the apartment buildings to be built in their place. In Namık Kemal and Ziyapaşa neighborhoods, a few vineyard plots have survived to the present day, preserving their characteristics. Apart from these, it can be said that the neighborhoods are completely built up, and green areas and social facilities are almost non-existent. The already insurmountable borders and thresholds of the region have been further strengthened and it has been completely enclosed by borders.

Parcel Analysis
When the neighborhoods in the Bağlar district are closely examined, it is much better understood how today's building islands, parcels, and streets were formed. Close plan analyses have been carried out in three neighborhoods and two areas in Namik Kemal Neighborhood are presented within the scope of the study. In Figure 7a, the parcel compared between 1950 and 2019 is approximately 20,000 square meters with a single vineyard house. In 2019, it is understood that it was divided into parcels of 400 square meters on average. There is a free order plan application within the parcels and they are not built according to any zoning plan. It is seen that some parcels have more than one building and streets have been created to provide access to the divided parcels. As a result, the traces of today's construction are shaped by the traces of the past.
The other parcels analyzed in Figure 7b cover a total area of 21000 square meters. It is seen that some of these parcels have been divided and sold, while some of them retain their root parcel characteristics. The vineyard parcel, which retains its root parcel characteristic, is very little built up today and preserves its garden. In the 2019 empty-fill diagram, the vineyard parcels are clearly visible. According to this diagram, it was determined that streets were created to reach the divided parcels and that the streets were cut and evolved into dead-end streets due to the protection of the root parcels. The formation of other dead-end streets in the region is very similar.

Parcel Functions and Sizes
In 1950, there were 292 parcels in total in the Bağlar region. Although the parcel sizes vary, the average is 4200 square meters. Although they are few in number, some of them are under 500 square meters and the majority are over 500 square meters. There are also parcels whose size reaches 40000 square meters. 115 of these parcels are vineyards and houses, vineyards or gardens, 52 are fields, 64 are land plots, 13 are masonry or courtyard houses, the functions of the rest could not be determined. These parcels started to be divided since the 1950s and were sold first to relatives and then to people who migrated (Hız ve Göçük, 2018). In cases where no new parcels were created by dividing, shares were sold and houses were built in large parcels without a zoning or license. Until today, only a few parcels from the division remained. In 2019, it was seen that the number of parcels was more than 3000 and their size decreased to 100 square meters. In Figure 8, the condition of the parcels before and after the division is shown.

Number of Storey Analysis
There are a total of 228 buildings in the Bağlar region as determined from aerial photographs taken in 1950. As a result of the oral history studies conducted in the neighborhood, it was determined that the majority of these buildings bear the typical characteristics of the cottages presented within the scope of the study. By 1985, there were 1413 1-storey buildings, 1393 2-storey buildings, 56 4-storey buildings and 41 5-storey buildings in the neighborhood. Buildings over five floors are very rare and the maximum number of buildings is 11 floors. When we come to the present day, it is determined that the number of buildings has increased in parallel with the increase in population. The number of single-storey buildings is 1017, the number of two-storey buildings is 1346, the number of three-storey buildings is 684, the number of four-storey buildings is 145, the number of 5-storey buildings is 37, there are 70 buildings between 6 and 10 floors and 28 buildings between 11 and 18 floors (Figure 9).
When Figure 9 is analyzed, it is seen that the majority of the houses are between one and three storeys. The most important element that draws attention as a result of this analysis is the locations where high-density buildings are constructed. When the diagram of the number of storeys analysis in Figure 9 is analyzed, it is seen that five storeys and above are built on Mücahitler Street, Baraj Street, 66035 Street, the continuation of Atatürk Street, Mustafa Kemalpaşa Boulevard and its surroundings. These axes correspond to the threshold, border and nodal points of the neighborhood. In the Ziyapaşa neighborhood, the situation is different. Since the eastern side of this neighborhood, which is close to the river, was declared an urban transformation zone in the early 2000s, therefore there is no high-density construction on and around Kasım Gülek Boulevard.

Vineyard Houses (Cottages)
In the Bağlar region, very few cottages have survived to the present day. As far as can be determined, traces of a few vineyard houses in the Namık Kemal Neighborhood and Gazipaşa Neighborhood can be read today. According to the oral history research conducted in the neighborhood, unlike other areas with rural settlement characteristics, the houses in this area were used as temporary residences. The cottages here are similar to the houses in the rural settlement texture in Yüreğir District, which Burcu Yıldız (2020) discussed in her master's thesis. As we move away from the city center, the number of cottages becomes fewer and the size of the vineyard plots increases. Figure 10a presents photographs of a vineyard house in the Namık Kemal Neighborhood in 1950 and a vineyard house identified in the same neighborhood today (Figure 10b). When the photographs of vineyard houses obtained from Mehmet Baltacı's photo archives are compared with the oral history data, they show an exact match. When these vineyard houses are examined, it is seen that these houses have their own water wells and pump systems. In addition, vineyard houses are generally oriented to the south and have open sofas. With these features, they are in harmony with the typological characteristics of the traditional Turkish house.
According to the examinations made in the study area, it was seen that the cottages that survived in Gazipaşa Neighborhood are mostly single-storey. Survey studies and interviews with the owners were conducted on one of these houses. Like the others, this house has two rooms around an open sofa and a hipped roof (Figure10c, 10d). It was found that a bathroom was added to the building later, the parcel of the building was preserved and an orange grove was created. This cottage is an example of a rare, preserved parcel and building combination in the region. a. The Cottage of Pervin Olgun, 1950s (Hız andGöçük, 2018) b. One of the last few remaining cottages in the Namık

Conclusions and Recommendations
In the light of the analysis conducted in the region, the change in the physical and human morphology of the neighborhoods can be clearly evaluated. The results obtained from the physical analysis can be listed as follows; • The parcel boundaries of today's construction come from the boundaries of the vineyard parcels of the past. • Although many zoning plan studies were prepared in the region, they were based on the organically developed texture. It has been determined that most of the plan studies could not be implemented and the zoning problems of the neighborhoods continue today. • Almost all of the street texture, thresholds, boundaries, and zones in the region are traces of the rural texture of 1950. • As Conzen (1969) and Oliviera (2016) have shown, street traces are the most difficult formations to change in cities. In the Bağlar area, the street formation and structuring of the area were almost completed until 1985, after which the demolition process started and the number of storeys started to increase in the area by demolishing low-density buildings while the streets remained constant. Today, the second demolition process has started and building heights continue to increase. • While the average parcel size in the region was 4200 square meters in the 1950s, these parcels were divided to form the very small parcels of today. • Today, the neighborhoods are under the pressure of rent and construction brought about by the 2.4-density zoning plan. In this situation, it is seen that the last traces of the neighborhood will disappear in the future. • As a result of the surveys conducted in many areas of the neighborhood, it has been observed that the houses in the area have been demolished and are waiting for the completion of the zoning works for rebuilding. This situation causes many parts of the neighborhood to be seen as ruins. • The neighborhood has the appearance of a fringe belt first described by Conzen (1969). The area is squeezed between borders, and it has been determined that the borders have sharpened and strengthened over time, turning into obstacles that are difficult to overcome. • The bed of the Seyhan River, one of the natural boundaries of the Ziyapaşa Neighborhood, has changed many times and this has created continuous changes in the morphology of the neighborhood. • The rural settlement texture of the neighborhood and the vineyard culture have also disappeared. The last inhabitants, the witnesses of the period when the neighborhood consisted of vineyards, have either left the region or have reached the end of their lives. In this case, the lifestyle in the region is changing day by day and losing its local characteristics. • In addition, a small number of vineyard houses in the study area have survived in ruins. These vineyard houses are in parallel with the typological characteristics of the traditional Turkish House.
The 3665 square meter parcel numbered 1469/ 97, located in Gazipaşa Neighborhood, is zoned as a green area since it continues to exist as an orange grove today. As a result of the oral history research and morphology studies conducted on this parcel, it was observed that it has existed as a vineyard since the 1940s. It is one of the two green areas envisaged for Gazipaşa Neighborhood together with a small park area of 980 square meters in 1469/ 29 parcel. Parcel 1469/ 97 is not open to the public as it belongs to a private owner. On the other hand, there is a vineyard house within the parcel in question, which preserves its original structure. Together with this vineyard house, it is the only vineyard in the region where the parcel and the vineyard house are preserved together. The vineyard house here is dilapidated (Figure 10c). It is recommended that this parcel be rehabilitated and opened to the public by making green area arrangements in a way to maintain the vineyard characteristic and that the vineyard house inside be preserved and restored. In addition, this area has the potential to be a recreation area where information about the vineyard history of the region is presented and products produced with viticulture methods are introduced.
Although the parcels of the two vineyard houses in Namik Kemal Neighborhood are not protected, both of them have the potential to be restored together with their surroundings and put back into use with zoning regulations. The areas where these vineyard houses are located are currently zoned for housing. However, they have a high potential to be used as public spaces with restoration and revitalization works.
Within the scope of this study, an evaluation was made on three neighborhoods in the region known as Bağlarbaşı. The study can be extended to include all the neighborhoods around the modern city center, known as the Jansen plan area, and the historic city center, as well as the region extending up to the Taurus Mountains. In addition, a more detailed study about the life and architectural features of the vineyard houses in the region can be compared with both the vineyard houses in Adana and the vineyard houses in other cities and their characteristics.
The data obtained from the studies are in line with Marcel Poëte's assertion that "the memory of a city survives in the physical structure of that city" (Bilsel, 2015: 61). The physical formations of the three neighborhoods, such as today's parcel boundaries, main roads and streets, thresholds, and reinforcements, bear the traces of the period when the neighborhoods were vineyards and gardens. It is thought that the data obtained in the study will be an important source for the planning studies to be carried out in the area, as well as bringing to light the values of the city's history that are about to be lost.