• 1 Afet İnan, Atatürk Hakkında Hatıralar ve Belgeler, Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 19 (...)
• 2 Charles Taylor, “Nationalism and Modernity,” in Ronald Beiner, Theorizing Nationalism, Albany, NY: (...)
• 3 Afet İnan, op. cit. (note 1).

1After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the Turkish army to victory in the Turkish Independence War (1918-1922). On 1 November 1922, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey abolished the Ottoman Empire. On 29 October 1923, the foundation of the Turkish Republic was officially announced. Next, a strategic political decision moved the capital city from İstanbul to Ankara, a small town in the middle of Anatolia. The new government passed a series of radical reforms, transforming Turkey’s social, political, and economic structure. The reforms aimed to build a new nation-state to shape a secular, modern future. Sharia-based Ottoman law was abandoned. The stated goal of the new government was “to reach the level of contemporary civilization (muasır medeniyetler).”1 This was to be achieved through progress with modern principles observed in Western Europe. However, as Charles Taylor argues, “non-European countries in the nation-building process wanted to do what had already been done in Europe. But they were aware that they could not directly imitate their practices. This could not be a solution.”2 In parallel, Republicans strongly asserted that far from imitating European models, their policy was concerned with how “to learn and adopt what it is seen as good because it is conceived as suitable for local culture.”3 The process of learning and adopting European theories was to be implemented across the country.

• 4 See the speech of the Minister of Interior, Şükrü Kaya dated 20.03.1930 in Correspondence of TBMM (...)
• 5 Vilma Hastaoglou Martinidis, “Urban aesthetics and national identity: the refashioning of Eastern (...)
• 6 Sibel Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republi (...)

2In the language of the Republicans, the modernization of cities was associated with meeting every citizen’s need for “civilization and sanitation,” as well as economic concerns.4 The perceived need for “civilization” and “sanitation” referred mainly to the illiterate population living in rural Anatolia. Many villages had no schools or clinics; the region as a whole lacked road or rail networks and vehicles. Moreover, some communities were still trying to preserve a pro-sharia lifestyle, opposed to Republican reforms. Such counterviews were not welcome in an ideological atmosphere advocating secularism and modernity. The Republic’s political leaders saw these communities as a social problem that needed to be solved. During the interwar period, it was no coincidence that urban planning was fostered as a solution to support nation-building.5 Creating model modern cities was perceived as the key to disseminating Republican reforms.6

• 7 İlhan Tekeli, “Türkiye’de Kent Planlamasının Tarihsel Kökleri,” in Tamer Gök and Orta Doğu, Türkiy (...)
• 8 After the foundation of the Republic in 1923, these two companies were officially recognized by th (...)
• 9 In 1882 two academies were founded in İstanbul with the aim of providing higher education to the e (...)
• 10 Since the early years of the Republic were a transitional period to build a new ideology, many law (...)

3Moreover, the Turkish Government was aware that urban planning offered scientific and innovative solutions for some of the social and physical problems faced during the post-war recovery period. Therefore, even before the official declaration of the Republic, Republicans sought to reformulate the constitutional and institutional framework to facilitate the planning processes. To meet this urgent need, military engineers were assigned to rebuild many small cities and villages in Anatolia,7 and local companies were established to reconstruct the cities. In 1922, the Turkish Architecture and Construction Company (Türk İmar ve İnşaat Şirketi) and the Exploration and Construction Company (Keşfiyat ve İnşaat Anonim Şirketi) were formed, aiming to conduct projects, prepare city maps and analyze infrastructural and topographical data.8 These companies were founded by local architects and engineers who had been trained in the education system established in the Late Ottoman Period, which had adopted French models, inspired by Haussmann’s transformation of Paris, 1853-70.9 The builders were quickly commissioned by the municipalities of many small cities to prepare plans. However, their education was antiquated. Knowledge, techniques, and construction laws needed to be updated in order to meet the needs of the 20^th century.10 That is why the new government contacted European advisors. Many French experts were contacted, continuing the French model that had dominated since the last years of the Ottoman Period.

• 11 Esra Akcan, Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, and the Modern House, Durham, NC; Londo (...)

4In addition, the interwar political atmosphere in Europe supplied a further stimulus. With Hitler on the rise, the Turkish Republic invited 63 German-speaking professors and architects seeking to leave their country.11 All these invitations aimed to learn the latest modern developments of the century from Europe and adapt them to the Turkish context of urbanism and architecture both in practice and theory.

• 12 Biray Kolluoglu Kırlı, “Forgetting the Smyrna Fire,” History Workshop Journal, no. 60, 2005, p. 25 (...)

5In Turkish historiography, the conquest of İzmir, the city where the Greek army left Anatolia defeated by Turkey, marks the endpoint of the Turkish Independence War. These events were followed by the Great İzmir Fire of September 1922. Many neighborhoods were in ruins12—both physically and socially. For the Republicans, the recovery process was a convenient opportunity to integrate ideological change into society. Moreover, İzmir was already multicultural, compared to other Western Anatolian cities. It bore fewer traces of the Ottoman Empire, a trait that suited the Republicans seeking to tone down such traces nationwide. The port of İzmir was also the gateway for European trade with Anatolia. Connecting İzmir with the new capital, Ankara, was crucial to the economic, cultural, and social developments in the first years of the Republic. Therefore, İzmir’s urban planning had to be in line with modern principles and reach the level of contemporary European cities.

• 13 See the selected sources (in chronological order): Cânâ Bilsel, “Ideology and urbanism during the (...)

7The urban planning work Prost and the Dangers did for İzmir has already been covered extensively in the literature.13 This article intends to go beyond the İzmir Plan and analyze the planning experiences of other cities in Western Anatolia. Alongside this holistic perspective, we shall discuss whether the French advisors’ experience in France’s colonies was a factor in their commissioning by the new Turkish Republic. Moreover, given that the experience of these early years of urban planning formed the basis for the legal and practical consolidation of the Republican ideology in urban policies, the research traces the interaction between French and local advisors in this seminal process.

• 14 “La Reconstruction de Smyrne,” Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires, December 1, 1922, p. (...)
• 15 A close friend of Atatürk, Şükrü Kaya had acted as an effective Republican negotiator at the Lausa (...)
• 16 In 1911, a group of Musée social members formed the Société française des architectes urbanistes ( (...)

8Immediately after the Great Fire of 1922, the Mayor of İzmir, Şükrü Kaya, was asked to report on the most recent developments in urbanism in Europe. The new administration was seeking a model for the future modern Turkish city. One Paris daily reported “the Turkish government has started negotiations with foreign companies for the reconstruction of İzmir... They agreed to take advantage of foreign capital, but without political goals.”14 Şükrü Kaya had already traveled to Paris and been impressed by the Haussmannian transformation of the city. Visiting the French capital, he had been friendly with French intellectuals, and was comfortable cooperating with French advisors.15 He was aware of the developments of French urbanism achieved by the Paris-based French Society of Urban Planners (Société française des urbanistes-SFU) during the interwar period.16 This opened the way for the long-term presence in Anatolia of the SFU members.

• 17 Bülent Varlık, Umumi Müfettişler Toplantı Tutanakları: 1936, Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları, 2010.
• 18 He claimed that French colonialists made illegal economic benefits by trading in Turkish territori (...)
• 19 When foreign powers were asked to build embassies in Ankara, France was one of the countries that (...)
• 20 Alfred Mallet, “Les idées de M. Albert Sarraut ambassadeur de France en Turquie,” Le Figaro, March (...)

9The political atmosphere of the newly established Republic also influenced the decision of which foreign professionals would be invited. After the new capital was declared to be Ankara, the government requested that foreign states build new embassies in that city. Germany, which officially recognized the Republic of Turkey, responded to this call and started construction works. France’s stance was different. With Antioch (Hatay) and Alexandretta (İskenderun) still under French mandate and in delicate political circumstances, relations between France and Turkey played a significant role. On the one hand, these relations were somewhat strained on the Turkish side, since Turkey was uncomfortable with the unresolved French domination on its border.17 In speeches to parliament, Şükrü Kaya frequently expressed his discomfort about the French presence in Syria.18 On the other hand, French authorities sought to prolong their political and economic domination in the mandate area in Syria by pursuing “pacification,” the way they had recently done in North Africa. Under these circumstances, the appointment of Albert Sarraut as the French ambassador to Turkey was a shrewd choice. As Minister of the Colonies between 1920 and 1924, he was one of the central figures in French colonial policy in North Africa, collaborating for many years with Marshal Lyautey. Şükrü Kaya was assigned to organize on behalf of the Republicans the French-Turkish agreement carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). His first mission was to welcome Sarraut to Turkey and conduct political negotiations with him.19 Sarraut’s statement prior to his departure for Ankara testified to the French strategy. He strongly underlined the importance of his experiences in North Africa for his new mission in Turkey in terms of his understanding of different races, cultures, and traditions. He then stated his main objectives in Turkey as follows: “I will seek to safeguard our moral influence and our material interests. I will support our école as I will seek trade deals….”20

• 21 Six years later, their école was harshly criticized. According to the Turkish press, although the (...)
• 22 Three of these founding members were Turkish (ex-Chief Rabbi of Turkey Nahoum Efendi; Turkish dipl (...)
• 23 “Bruits et Nouvelles,” L’information financière économique et politique, January 18, 1923, p. 5. T (...)
• 24 Ibid., p. 2.
• 25 Ibid., p. 3.

10Challenging France’s colonial rule in North Africa did not become an item on the Turkish political agenda until the early 1930s.21 In the 1920s, criticism of French policy involved the threat to Turkey’s borders. Despite these criticisms and concerns prevailing in the interwar political atmosphere and Şükrü Kaya’s discomfort with the French colonialist policies on the borders of Turkey, he in fact ensured the establishment of an association in Paris for urban planning practices in Anatolia. On 30 December 1922, the Society of Studies for the Reconstruction of İzmir (Société d'études pour la Reconstruction de Smyrne) was established by eight French and Turkish founding members, in collaboration with the French Company of the Levant (Compagnie Française du Levant).22 It became the first collaboration between the French and Turkish governments. Soon after, it was announced that “an Ottoman company has just been established in Paris with the assistance of the Banque de Paris and the Banque des Pays d’Orient, which is now controlled by the Banque Nationale de Credit, to participate in the reconstruction of destroyed buildings and districts in İzmir.”23 The Society’s charter consisted of 49 articles. The main aims were identified as the construction of new buildings, regulation of demolished areas, execution and management of public works, and creation of a road network to meet the city’s needs after the fire. According to the charter, the Society “may take over the management of buildings to be constructed and may directly or indirectly involve (itself) in the commercial or industrial operations carried out” and “may invest in and create any similar or related, French or foreign, businesses, companies, agencies, branches or subsidiaries.”24 One of the significant working principles of the Society, in which the French held a controlling interest, was to cooperate with local authorities. Article 28 of the regulation mandated the setting up of “a local advisory committee headquartered in İzmir, composed of five to ten members, for the study of questions on which an opinion is requested by the council or its delegates.”25 Such cooperation was in parallel with the policy of the Republican ideology to acquire scientific knowledge; yet this last article can also be associated with the Turkish authorities’ unwillingness to relinquish all economic and decision-making control. In other words, with this article, the Republicans aimed to prevent France from using this economic power unilaterally in the future as a part of an imperialist strategy. Decisions regarding the economic interest would be subject to the approval of both parties. In addition, the involvement of local authorities in the decision-making process paved the way for a bottom-up process, as opposed to top-down.

• 26 In her research, Cânâ Bilsel mentions that the reason for contacting Prost might be the result of (...)
• 27 Carl H. Nightingale, Segregation. A Global History of Divided Cities, Chicago, IL; London: Univers (...)
• 28 Henri Prost, “L’urbanisme au Maroc,” Urbanisme, Hors-Série, 1932.

11In 1922, the Society for Reconstruction of İzmir contacted the architect-urbanist Henri Prost.26 Prost, who had trained at Beaux-Arts, had contributed to the institutionalization of urbanism as a discipline, and was a founding member of SFU. In that period, he was mostly known as a colonial urbanist because of his long-term collaboration with Marshal Lyautey from 1912 onwards. He had directed construction projects in many towns and cities in French North Africa, and established the Special Service of Architecture and Urbanism in Morocco (Service spécial d’architecture et d’urbanisme au Maroc). Under his leadership, several master plans and urban interventions were implemented in historic Moroccan cities such as Casablanca, Rabat, and Fez. In fact, he was something of a specialist in integrating modern planning principles into a very old city. Moreover, in accordance with colonial policy, Prost was required to preserve local cultural values and historical monuments. Prost achieved these goals by segregating the indigenous town from the compound built for European life.27 According to Prost, “the program imposed by Marshal Lyautey included an essential condition: complete separation (séparation complète)” of the two settlements. The reasons for this segregation belonged to several different categories: political, economic, hygienic, educative, and aesthetic.28

• 29 Hubert Lyautey, Paroles d’action: Madagascar, Sud-Oranais, Oran, Maroc (1900-1926), Paris: Armand (...)

12Like many other SFU members, Prost perceived his Moroccan task as a laboratory for developing his ideas on modern urbanism. In other words, the North African experience was seen as an unexplored learning space where French theories could be put into practice. Lyautey, who frequently mentioned that he aimed to “civilize” the indigenous people by modernizing Moroccan cities, always underlined his admiration for Prost’s approach. According to Lyautey, all the projects Prost had led had successfully fulfilled the purpose of French colonial policy.29

• 30 A recent study of Prost lists his planning activities in France in chronological order: Laurent Ho (...)
• 31 In the 19^th century, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Ottoman Empire showed concern (...)

13It should be noted that when the Turkish government contacted Prost, almost a decade had passed since the French urbanism experiment in Morocco. Prost received the invitation when he was already back in France, working on the Plan d’aménagement de la région Parisienne directed by Léon Jaussely and on the Plan directeur de la côte Varoise with the Danger brothers.30 In other words, the Turkish Republican authorities sought an architect active in metropolitan France, planning further renovations in Paris and lecturing at the Institute of Urban Planning and the Special School of Architecture in Paris, not a colonial architect. This was also coherent with the perspective of the authorities in the Late Ottoman Period. When the Turkish Republicans hired a Paris-based professional for their renovation of Ankara and Western Anatolia, they were following in the footsteps of the Ottomans, who had invited many experts from France in the early 1900s.31

• 32 Sibel Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation Building, op. cit. (note 6).
• 33 Recent research recalls the history of the first architecture magazine of this period, Arkitekt, a (...)
• 34 Sabri Gültekin, “Melez Terbiye,” Ülkü, vol. 2, no. 7, 1933; Sibel Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation B (...)
• 35 Zeki Sayar, “İç Kolonizasyon,” Arkitekt, no. 68, 1936, p. 231-235.

14Although French colonial policies were mentioned in Turkish discussions of architecture and urban planning in the 1930s, there was still no clear opposition to them. As Turkish scholar Sibel Bozdoğan has underlined, “one of the interesting aspects of the 1930s was that the term colonization had no negative connotations”.32 With the institutionalization process that gave structure to the reforms, journals were established to publish the writings of local architects and engineers. In their articles, many Turkish architects published their opinions of the potential effects on historic cities of the Republic’s modernization program.33 Many of them connected the Republican’s “modernization” argument to the main discourse of French colonial policy at the beginning of the 20^th century, which was bringing “civilization” to North Africa. However, their argument framed a different perspective that contrasted with the political agenda. The negative atmosphere that dominated political criticism was not seen in the field of architecture and urban planning. The understanding of integrating the word “colonization” or “colonial” with architecture and urbanism was also perceived differently: it was meant as a progressive and enlightened situation that helped to improve the socio-cultural, economic, and physical environment of the countryside.34 Referring to the agriculture-oriented urbanization established in order to maintain the economic balances in Europe, one of the prominent local architects, Zeki Sayar, stated that the equivalent of this in Turkey is “internal colonization.” According to him, if the central Turkish government “colonized” the small cities in Anatolia, the economy would be strengthened, schools would be improved, and a generation of modern, secular youth would rise.35 By positioning these perspectives, it can be argued that the scientific approach in the architectural debate should be considered separately from the critique of colonialist politics. As a result, invitations to French planning professionals to plan Turkish cities should be seen as independent from the Frenchmen’s colonial background and colonialist policies overall. Instead, discussions were focused on the fact that those “conveying civilization” to the urban environment were foreigners, not local experts. In other words, the main critique was that as outsiders, these consultants were insufficiently acquainted with the urban environment, the characteristics of Turkish cities, and the needs of local culture. In this light, it can be argued that the reactions of Turkish authorities were related to the fact that the professionals were foreigners, not that they had a colonial background.

• 37 A Beaux-Arts architect, Maurice Pillet was in charge on the survey of ongoing developments in East (...)

15Maurice Pillet delivered the speech above at the International Colonial Urbanism Congress (Congrès International de l’Urbanisme aux Colonies et dans les Pays Tropicaux) organized in Paris in 1931 as a part of the International Colonial Exhibition (L’Exposition Coloniale Internationale de Paris). Connecting the modernization processes of Eastern cultures to the influence of French colonialist policies, Pillet37 emphasized that Prost’s approach on İzmir was not undertaken within a colonial framework. The mention of the İzmir Plan in a colonial exhibition might have been a reaction to rising anticolonial sentiment in France at that time. Government officials, on the defensive, might have wished to point out that they were modernizing other countries as well.

• 38 Cânâ Bilsel, “Ideology and urbanism during the Early Republican Period,” op. cit. (note 13). Kalli (...)
• 39 Frédéric Seitz, L’École spéciale d’architecture, 1865-1930: une entreprise d’idée, Paris: Picard, (...)
• 40 “Le plan d’aménagement de la ville de Smyrne,” L’Architecture, vol. 40, no. 4, 1927. See also, Cân (...)
• 41 Ibid.

16In 1922, when the Society of Studies for the Reconstruction of İzmir contacted Prost, he stated that he could remain as a consultant for the İzmir Plan but lacked the time to fully undertake the task. He suggested the studio led by his friends and collaborators René and Raymond Danger.38 This was not a motiveless choice: the collaboration between Prost and the Danger brothers had started in North Africa and continued in France.39 On the basis of Prost’s recommendation, in 1923, René Danger, as the main representative of the studio, signed the contract with the İzmir Municipality. According to the deal, Prost stayed on as a consultant on the plan. A two-year experience in Turkey began for the Danger brothers. Meanwhile, according to the regulations of the Society, a team of local doctors, architects, and engineers was appointed by the municipality to analyze the city’s geographical, economic, meteorological, hydrological, and geological situation. Based on these analyses, the team identified the main needs of the city and presented a report to the Danger brothers.40 The main requirements were the reconstruction of burnt districts and the construction of administrative, commercial, and residential areas, to transform İzmir into a modern city, culturally and economically.41

• 42 “Plan d’aménagement de Magnésie du Sipyle,” L’Architecture, vol. 12, 1924, p. 151-158.

17In this framework, transportation was a central focus of the plan. In line with the industrialization program that was the backbone of Republican ideology, one of the most important tasks was the establishment of railways. As mentioned before, the port city of İzmir was the main gateway to Western Anatolia, linking Europe to the capital city, Ankara. The Prost-Danger Plan proposed a central train station ensuring this connection by rail. The new İzmir-Manisa-Uşak-Ankara railway line was to include two small cities in Western Anatolia. The administrator of the Society of Studies for the Reconstruction of İzmir, Paul Gille, asked René Danger to contact the municipalities of Manisa and Uşak to prepare reconstruction plans.42

• 43 Ibid.
• 44 “La Renaissance des Cités,” Comoedia, Paris, August 15, 1924, p. 3.
• 45 Nusret Köklü, Manisa Şehir Atlası, [s.l.]: NA, 1993, vol. 3. The existing literature on this matte (...)
• 46 Nusret Köklü, Manisa Şehir Atlası, op. cit. (note 45).

18The Society aimed to create a holistic planning process from İzmir to Ankara. Manisa, also known as Magnesia, was the first stop. The city, located only 40 km from İzmir, had been nearly completely destroyed by fire during the Greco-Turkish War. René and his brother Raymond Danger travelled to Manisa and analyzed the economic, social, cultural, demographical, and topographical aspects of the city. Although there is no document in the local archives to show that the municipality of Manisa was contacted, René Danger was aware of the existence of a 1:2,000 scale map prepared in 1920 showing the urban fabric of Manisa before the fires. Based on this map, the brothers began to develop their planning proposal. Finally, they submitted their Plan d’aménagement de la ville de Magnésie with four more detailed plans showing the city government buildings, a public park with a football pitch, the train station, and workers’ housing in garden apartments. The planners also presented several sketches prepared by their collaborators in Paris of how Manisa would look after renovation.43 The French press described the Dangers’ work as “a success for the spread of French doctrines to foreign lands.”44 However, the Turkish media did not report that the Danger brothers were working on other cities besides İzmir. Moreover, their plan was not reviewed by Manisa authorities. The only mention of the planning studies in the minutes of the Manisa town council meetings notes that “a company in France tried to be included, but [its work] was not concluded.” There are no other details, reports, or official agreements about the collaboration of the Danger brothers with Manisa Municipality. 45 On November 29, 1922, the municipality signed its official contract with the Turkish Architecture and Construction Company. The plan prepared by local architects, Selahattin Bey and Akif Bey, was approved on July 21, 1923.46 Both the Danger brothers’ plan and that of the Turkish architects were based on 1:2000 scale maps prepared by the municipality in 1920. However, they represented different points of view in terms of urbanism and heritage policy.

• 47 René Danger, “Şehir Planı,” Belediyeler Dergisi, no. 2, 1935, p. 9.

19In the program prepared by the Dangers, two main aspects were prioritized for rebuilding or repairing after the fire: preservation and restoration of religious and historical monuments to respect the city’s traditions, and maintenance of the existing commercial and administrative district. At that point, the planning decisions diverged from the poly-centered urbanism approach in North Africa, with which Danger brothers were familiar. Instead of dividing the historical fabric by creating a new modern city center, they placed new settlements at the periphery in connection with the existing historical core. This decision not only avoided a radical urban transformation of the city but also reduced the cost to the newly born Turkish government, which had limited economic resources. Lastly, transportation and hygiene issues were tackled as fundamental elements in accomplishing these two main priorities. The Danger Plan proposed a transportation network that would maintain the traces of existing 19^th century road lines in the city, widening some of the roads to create broad avenues. Arguing that trams should be the main form of public transportation, the Danger brothers prepared sketches on how to expand the streets by identifying their specific dimensions. Moreover, they designed new roads connecting important points of the city, such as the city government buildings, the train station, and three historical mosques. In short, this plan preserved the existing urban fabric while aiming to provide for the smoothest flow of traffic at the lowest cost.47

• 49 “Plan d’aménagement de Magnésie du Sipyle,” op. cit. (note 42), p. 155.
• 50 René Danger, “Şehir Planı”, op. cit. (note 47).

21Another significant element in the planning decisions was the proposal to transform the existing cemetery areas into public parks. According to René Danger, “Turkish cemeteries are suitable for transformation into a public park, and these areas should be preserved with their vegetation by expanding green spaces around them.”49 He advocated preserving vegetation because “the tree also plays a very important role in the beauty of the city. In this respect, I would like to enjoy the plane and cypress trees of the beautiful city of Manisa.”50 In the Ottoman period, from the mid-19^th century, some cemeteries in the middle of Turkish cities had already begun to be transformed into parks, as happened in France. However, most of these transformations had followed a strategy of moving the cemeteries to the periphery, rather than preserving them in place. Following this, the approved plan for Manisa aimed to remove the cemeteries from the historic core of the city and replace them with new settlements. A few years later, Danger criticized this decision as:

• 52 While Danger had designed a 31-meter avenue, this width was 20-meter in the approved plan.

22Although the approved urban program never mentioned the Danger Plan, some features were similar, such as the preservation of the three historic 16^th-century mosques. The Danger Plan proposed a wide avenue connecting the municipal buildings with the mosques. The avenue would end in a newly created park containing the municipal buildings, located in the historic city center. This connection also appeared on the approved plan, although the proposed width was kept narrower.52 The square was realized in the 1930s (fig. 3).

• 53 René Danger, “Une étude de plan régulateur d’Ouchak (Anatolie),” L’Ingénieur constructeur de trava (...)
• 54 Ibid.

23After Manisa, René Danger was assigned by the Society of the Reconstruction of İzmir to conduct scientific analyses and prepare a modern urban plan for Uşak, which was the seat of the Administrative Quarter for the Kütahya province at that time. Contrary to what happened with the Manisa and İzmir proposals, the planners did not have a plan of Uşak that they could use as a base. Therefore, they first surveyed the town's topography to make a 1:2000 scale map of the region. In addition to the topographical data, the map included the boundaries of the area, the existing commercial zone, the burnt areas, the important historical mosques, and the hammam.53 The Dangers designed two plans for Uşak: État Actuel Avec Anomalie des Courbes de Niveau (Current State, with Contour Line Anomaly) and Remèdes apportés à cette deformation (Remedies for this Deformation). The first document set out the existing situation with topographical data and fire zones, and highlighted the main urban problems of Uşak. The second showed their proposal for the municipal government zone around Republic Square. It was to include such public buildings as a theater, a school, a museum, a library, and a town hall. Moreover, the planners submitted an urban program that included practical and economic suggestions to solve the problems they had identified.54

• 55 The Dangers explained that the riverbed had deformed over time due to the buildings built around i (...)

24These problems were mostly related to the district infrastructure. Chief among them was the risk of flood for the ruins of neighborhoods that were nearly destroyed during the war. The draft Danger Plan suggested two infrastructural solutions.55 In addition, the draft plan recommended the industrialization of Uşak’s artisanal rug-weaving activity, famous in Western countries. It proposed selecting an industrial zone considered prevailing winds to lessen the impact on residential areas. However, these suggestions did not appear on the plan that was finally submitted, which was divided into four main sections: location, population, water flow, and winds.

• 56 René Danger, “Une étude de plan régulateur d’Ouchak (Anatolie),” op. cit. (note 53).
• 57 Haşim Tümer, Uşak Tarihi, İstanbul: Uşak Halk Eğitimine Yardım Derneği Kültür Yayınları, 1971.

25The population section of the program described the proposed link between the commercial and administrative centers in detail. According to Danger, “the çarşı (commercial area) is already in an established position,” and they should not “displace the tradition without serious reason.”56 Consequently, the proposal for the Administrative Quarter, which included Republican Square and the public buildings, left the historical core of Uşak, located between the commercial area and the train station, intact. Soon afterwards, however, due to shifting political alliances in Uşak, the mayor changed (three times between 1923-1927). During this period, many partial plans were implemented according to the Ebniye laws. In 1933, after the Building and Roads Law required every city to have an urban plan, the first planning works were started by local architects.57 Therefore, the plan submitted by Danger was never realized.

• 58 Kalliopi Amygdalou, “Building the Nation at the Crossroads of ‘East’ and ‘West’,” op. cit. (note 1 (...)
• 59 Cânâ Bilsel, “Ideology and urbanism during the Early Republican Period,” op. cit. (note 13). Bilse (...)

26In the meantime, the İzmir Plan was finalized by the Danger-Prost cooperation and submitted with Prost’s signature. The plan was accepted by the municipality in 1925. However, in an atmosphere where the political structure had changed, and in a multi-layered city like İzmir, the question of what to preserve and what to demolish was challenging. Amydalou and Morack have highlighted Prost’s clear intention to preserve several monuments in the burnt area.58 The plan envisaged the city in two parts: the modern and historic centers. As Bilsel has pointed out, the planners adopted a poly-centered approach.59 This choice pointed to a holistic planning approach rather than the segregation style in the French colonies. The French advisors were aware that, unlike the French colonial authorities, preoccupied with dividing their new cities, the Turkish Republican officials aimed to make nation-building visible. This awareness is reflected in the plan by linking the historical and modern quarter with a modernist framework. It was inspired by two main guidelines (fig. 4). Firstly, the plan was conceived to create a new settlement designed on the basis of typical Beaux-Arts approach, combining aesthetics and public health by opening wide avenues and creating multifunctional public parks. Secondly, the Prost-Danger Plan envisaged a preservationist approach to the parts of the historical urban fabric that had survived the fires. Moreover, the plan envisaged the creation of a Republican Square between the modern and historic districts.

• 60 Georges Risler, “Travaux des Sections,” Le Musée social, revue mensuelle, 1927, p. 269-279.
• 61 “Ebniye Kanunu”, Chapter 2, Article 16, Direction of the streets, op. cit. (note 10).
• 62 İlhan Tekeli, “19. Yüzyılda İstanbul Metropol Alanının Dönüşümü,” Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Ke (...)
• 63 Melih Ersoy, Osmanlıdan Günümüze İmar ve Yasalar, İstanbul: Ninova, 2020, p. 119.
• 64 Ibid, p. 121.

27The implementation of the plan began with the new settlements and the Republican Square. However, existing Ebniye laws prevented the realization of many of its other features. During a Musée Social meeting, Prost noted that “the laws in Turkey are very often the act of the Sultan.”60 He referred to the article of Ebniye Law stipulating “Those who want to construct new buildings or settlements should submit a petition and a map to the municipalities. After the examinations by local authorities, the documents that are found suitable are sent to the Sultan’s order and only the projects that receive the Sultan’s permission (irade-i seniyye) can be started.”61 However, it was impossible to apply the law in a political system formed by the Republic and without the Sultan. The second problem that Prost mentioned in the same meeting was related to property ownership. With the end of the war, the Lausanne Peace Treaty caused a massive population movement. On the one hand, population loss occurred in many cities of Anatolia, when non-Muslims emigrated. On the other hand, Turks coming from outside the Turkish Republic’s borders—mainly from Greece and the Balkans—had to settle in the cities in Asia Minor.62 One of the biggest consequences of these massive population movements was an ownership problem. In order to resolve the problems and accelerate the construction works, the Ebniye Law underwent two reforms. Firstly, according to the new Act No. 642 of 1925, “districts where more than 150 buildings have burned down are considered vacant land.”63 This gave municipalities the authority to demolish buildings when they deemed it necessary, even if they were not damaged, in the areas where the new settlement would be built. Secondly, Expropriation Act No. 583 went into effect in 1925.64 This law, instead of preserving the historical urban fabric, paved the way for the establishment of modern settlements outside these centers.

• 65 Jean-Louis Cohen and Monique Eleb, Casablanca, op. cit. (note 16).

28Creating open spaces was an outstanding feature of the plan, and local authorities thought it important to have a large square with a Republican Monument to celebrate national holidays. The construction of the Republican Square was thus initiated, despite the municipality’s limited budget. This square, planned on the basis of Beaux-Arts principles, was designed to host the new city government building. It was located far from the historical urban fabric recommended for preservation. In addition, recalling the purpose for the construction of the Boulevard du Quatre Zouaves in Casablanca, designed by Prost in 1912,65 the Republican Square of İzmir served as a symbolic gateway to the city for visitors arriving by sea (fig. 5).

• 66 Afet İnan, Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları - Methal Kısmı, İstanbul, Devlet Matbaası, 1931.
• 67 For further information, see, Mesut Dinler, Modernization through Past: Cultural Heritage during (...)
• 68 Kalliopi Amygdalou, “Building the Nation at the Crossroads of ‘East’ and ‘West’,” op. cit. (note 1 (...)

29Most of the İzmir Plan had been carried out by the 1930s. In the meantime, Republicans seeking traces of the pre-Ottoman period started to claim that “Turks existed in these lands before the Ottomans, and the Turkish nation originated with the Hittites and Sumerians.”66 This discourse, which was a component of the nation-building process, found a response in the archeological excavations and historical research initiated in Anatolia after the establishment of the Turkish Historical Society in 1931.67 Even though this research was allocated only a limited budget, the findings caused attention to the preservation of Ottoman monuments to slacken. It can be claimed that the implementation process of the Prost-Danger İzmir Plan already bore the traces of this attitude. As Kalliopi Amygdalou’s research underlined, Prost’s sketches listed many Byzantine and Roman buildings in the historic city center as “repairable” monuments to be preserved.68

• 69 Georges Risler, “Travaux des Sections,” op. cit. (note 60).
• 70 “İzmirin imar planında neden, sonradan bazı değişiklik yapılmış?,” Akşam, December 14, 1937, p. 5.
• 71 Kalliopi Amygdalou, “Building the Nation at the Crossroads of ‘East’ and ‘West’,” op. cit. (note 1 (...)

30However, in response to the urgent need for post-war recovery, local authorities prioritized building new housing and infrastructure over preserving the historical settlement. In 1927, during a meeting in the Musée Social, Rene Danger commented “There are no interesting monuments in İzmir.”69 His statement betrays a questionable bias, in contrast with Prost’s list. The fact that Danger conducted the on-site survey in tandem with the Turkish authorities may point to the conclusion that local advisors had an impact on his discourse. Only a few years later, in 1931, although the Danger brothers noted that “the plan is being implemented exactly” during their visit to İzmir,70 local authorities had already decided to revise the İzmir Plan, especially for the planning of the historical urban fabric.71 This was confirmed by a statement of the mayor of İzmir, Behiç Uz:

• 73 In 1922, this was the first occasion that the Turkish government came into contact with French adv (...)

32During the first decade of the Turkish Republic, many construction laws were modernized and the field of urbanism was institutionalized. In parallel, the Republicans sought to learn and import recent innovations, technical knowledge, and skills from European advisors to modernize Turkish cities. Within this framework, the establishment of the Society of Studies for Reconstruction of İzmir played a key role in welcoming French professionals to Anatolia. In 1922, the Prost – Danger collaboration in İzmir became the first example of urban planning studies produced by foreign professionals.73 However, instead of being limited to a single city, due to the holistic planning approach requirements, it encompassed several cities in Western Anatolia. In other words, the task of planning the line connecting İzmir to Ankara as a whole brought Manisa and Uşak to the attention of the French professionals. However, this seems to have been a one-sided attempt fostered by a French perspective. Although the Dangers’ planning studies included Manisa and Uşak, there is no indication that the Turkish authorities made such a request. Moreover, given that the Turkish government did not have the budget for large-scale urban transformations in small cities, it is no coincidence that the studies of the French urbanists did not yield results. Yet, as mentioned in this article, the fact that the Danger brothers were aware of a base plan of Manisa is an indication that they were in contact with the local authorities, even if unofficially. The limited budget and the not yet fully structured legal framework prevented the urgent rebuilding process needed in a small city like Manisa from being carried out in accordance with the Dangers’ plan. Furthermore, as the Uşak case showed, the unstable political structure in small cities was another reason why municipalities did not immediately concentrate on a new planning approach.

• 74 Yet, these experiences formed the basis of their planning for the cities under the French mandate (...)

34The planning proposals for these three cities, developed simultaneously by consultants from the same team, nevertheless differ. Although Prost and Danger contradicted each other regarding heritage-led decisions in the İzmir Plan, the plan they developed together ultimately did not suggest any intervention in the historical city center. The preservationist approach was also reflected in the plans for Manisa and Uşak developed by the Danger brothers. The polycentric approach as envisaged for İzmir Plan was not, on the other hand, included into these two plans. Instead, the Dangers developed a settlement dispersed around the historic city center that fit into the city’s topographical framework. This difference might be explained by the fact that Rene Danger was a topographic engineer, not an architect-urbanist, and the plans were not prepared by a multidisciplinary team.74 However, it is significant that they proposed to support Uşak’s economy by developing local skills and traditional crafts. Such a proposal, developed at a time when the concept seen today as the protection of intangible heritage was not yet defined, tells us that they approached their task with an innovative vision.

• 75 “Belediye Yapı ve Yollar Kanunu,” Official Gazette (T.C. Resmi Gazete No: 2433), June 21, 1933.

35Although the İzmir Plan was the only one that was put into practice, the ideas brought by the French advisors affected the development of the new Republic’s legal and theoretical framework. The main impact of this process was twofold: the understanding that a common legal structure had to be developed for all cities, and that the Ebniye laws required sweeping reform. In line with this purpose, the first construction law of the Republican period, the “Municipal Building and Roads Law (Belediye Yapı ve Yollar Kanunu)” went into effect in 1933. Based on the wording of the title of the law, one might suppose that it was limited to regulating micro-scale constructions in the urban environment. However, this was the first movement to frame the city as a whole instead of shaping the cities with partial plans. Moreover, Article 52 of this law invalidated the Ebniye Law and its relevant requirements.75 This meant that by 1933, all the traces of Ottoman law related to urbanism had been officially erased. The “Municipal Building and Roads Law” also included many firsts for the history of urbanism in the early Republican period. The terms “urbanism” and “urban program” were introduced into the laws of the Republic of Turkey for the first time; the conservation of historical monuments was also mentioned in the construction law. Moreover, the law stipulated that the buildings and monuments should be protected as a whole, within their context, rather than as individual objects. In short, the law required a large number of cities to be re-planned according to modern standards, ignoring the planning approach previously carried out by local advisors. This process created the legal framework that prevailed until the 1950s.