Her main research focuses on the spatial transformations of the cities in Eastern Mediterranean (Greece, the Balkans, and the Ottoman Empire), as well as on issues related to the evolution of squares and markets, design of medieval cities, planning of colonial cities, reconstruction after WW2 etc. She has published over 100 studies in Greek, French and English, and has taught in the UK, France, the USA, Turkey, etc. She is active in grassroots’ movements that fight in favour of public space and against authoritarian practices in urban space.
The planning of Thessaloniki's university campus. The importance of a long-term prevision
Thess... more The planning of Thessaloniki's university campus. The importance of a long-term prevision
Thessaloniki, Annals of the Centre for the History of Thessaloniki, vol. 6, 2002, 273-292
The paper discusses the reaction of the religious communities of Thessaloniki to the Greek gover... more The paper discusses the reaction of the religious communities of Thessaloniki to the Greek government' s proposal for a total redesign of the city, after the fire of 1917 that destroyed the city-intra-muros. The plan was signed by French planner Ernest Hebrard.
Alexandra Yerolympos
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912).
Plans, residential p... more Alexandra Yerolympos
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912). Plans, residential patterns, community and private initiatives
The settlement patterns and the planning codes and guidelines by which city growth takes shape during the final years of Ottoman rule constitute an interesting issue that has not been studied thoroughly. In general the spatial aspects of colonisation policies, internal security issues, or intra-urban conflicts were disregarded. Since the middle of the 19th century however, the process of ‘westernisation’ in the Ottoman Empire, supported by reform measures, affected impressively urban development and expansion of urban areas and demanded the attention of the authorities.
At the institutional level city expansion was treated as private-business enterprise. Municipal Governments that had been set up in the second half of the 19th century were not expected to prepare plans for new quarters or to reserve land for public or community uses. Their task was simply to accept or reject the private proposals that were submitted and approved by the central authority and the Ministry of Commerce.
Nonetheless in Thessaloniki the Municipality will eventually publish a plan for the expansion of the city in 1889 and another one in the first decade of the 20th century. In this context the members of different ethno-religious communities appear quite active and respond positively to the prospect of creating improved residential and business premises in an environment that addresses more adequately their requirements. In the last part, the paper follows the intense activity of the Allatinis, the most prominent family of Thessaloniki, in their effort to acquire land in the outskirts of the city (more than 40 hectares), plan and create an attractive suburb.
Published in the Proceedings of the international symposium Thessaloniki in the Eve of 1912, organized by the Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki in September 2012, numerized edition 2015, p. 57-83 (in Greek) + 16 illustrations
Learning from Barcelona.
The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to ... more Learning from Barcelona. The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to advice on important decisions to be taken about the Greek cities, the questions arise: Can Greece profit from this experience? Can an important agent of Barcelona’s achievements transmit his knowledge and assist the Greek authorities in their difficult task to control the growth and modernization of cities ? 13.12.2009
Στο βέλος του χρόνου, Tιμητικός τόμος για τον Γ. Λάββα. Εκδ. University Studio Press, Θεσσαλονίκη 2004,69-82, 2004
The paper examines the intense activity of kings, local lords and bishops in South and West Europ... more The paper examines the intense activity of kings, local lords and bishops in South and West Europe after the 11th century, aiming at the foundation of new urban centers and the attraction of inhabitants. A comparison to the Byzantine Empire reveals a complete absence of similar processes in the East as opposed to the dynamism of the western societies, that experience an impressive economic and demographic growth, that will eventually be directed towards Central and East Europe. The planning models adopted draw mainly from past colonisation models and Roman military camps, although the urban architecture and formal patterns that appear, will be codified in the following centuries in the form of rules for the creation of the american cities (Leyes de Indias). Urban land property, charts of citizens' rights, forms of self government will nevertheless transform deeply the town people allowing for the later rise of a new social class and marking "the end of the era of monks and knights".
Vivre dans l’Empire Ottoman. Sociabilités et relations intercommunautaires (XVIIIe-XXe siècles).. Georgeon, P. Dumont, eds) Vivre dans l’Empire Ottoman. Sociabilités et relations intercommunautaires (XVIIIe-XXe siècles). L’Harmattan, Paris 1997, 123-144., 1997
The planning of Thessaloniki's university campus. The importance of a long-term prevision
Thess... more The planning of Thessaloniki's university campus. The importance of a long-term prevision
Thessaloniki, Annals of the Centre for the History of Thessaloniki, vol. 6, 2002, 273-292
The paper discusses the reaction of the religious communities of Thessaloniki to the Greek gover... more The paper discusses the reaction of the religious communities of Thessaloniki to the Greek government' s proposal for a total redesign of the city, after the fire of 1917 that destroyed the city-intra-muros. The plan was signed by French planner Ernest Hebrard.
Alexandra Yerolympos
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912).
Plans, residential p... more Alexandra Yerolympos
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912). Plans, residential patterns, community and private initiatives
The settlement patterns and the planning codes and guidelines by which city growth takes shape during the final years of Ottoman rule constitute an interesting issue that has not been studied thoroughly. In general the spatial aspects of colonisation policies, internal security issues, or intra-urban conflicts were disregarded. Since the middle of the 19th century however, the process of ‘westernisation’ in the Ottoman Empire, supported by reform measures, affected impressively urban development and expansion of urban areas and demanded the attention of the authorities.
At the institutional level city expansion was treated as private-business enterprise. Municipal Governments that had been set up in the second half of the 19th century were not expected to prepare plans for new quarters or to reserve land for public or community uses. Their task was simply to accept or reject the private proposals that were submitted and approved by the central authority and the Ministry of Commerce.
Nonetheless in Thessaloniki the Municipality will eventually publish a plan for the expansion of the city in 1889 and another one in the first decade of the 20th century. In this context the members of different ethno-religious communities appear quite active and respond positively to the prospect of creating improved residential and business premises in an environment that addresses more adequately their requirements. In the last part, the paper follows the intense activity of the Allatinis, the most prominent family of Thessaloniki, in their effort to acquire land in the outskirts of the city (more than 40 hectares), plan and create an attractive suburb.
Published in the Proceedings of the international symposium Thessaloniki in the Eve of 1912, organized by the Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki in September 2012, numerized edition 2015, p. 57-83 (in Greek) + 16 illustrations
Learning from Barcelona.
The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to ... more Learning from Barcelona. The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to advice on important decisions to be taken about the Greek cities, the questions arise: Can Greece profit from this experience? Can an important agent of Barcelona’s achievements transmit his knowledge and assist the Greek authorities in their difficult task to control the growth and modernization of cities ? 13.12.2009
Στο βέλος του χρόνου, Tιμητικός τόμος για τον Γ. Λάββα. Εκδ. University Studio Press, Θεσσαλονίκη 2004,69-82, 2004
The paper examines the intense activity of kings, local lords and bishops in South and West Europ... more The paper examines the intense activity of kings, local lords and bishops in South and West Europe after the 11th century, aiming at the foundation of new urban centers and the attraction of inhabitants. A comparison to the Byzantine Empire reveals a complete absence of similar processes in the East as opposed to the dynamism of the western societies, that experience an impressive economic and demographic growth, that will eventually be directed towards Central and East Europe. The planning models adopted draw mainly from past colonisation models and Roman military camps, although the urban architecture and formal patterns that appear, will be codified in the following centuries in the form of rules for the creation of the american cities (Leyes de Indias). Urban land property, charts of citizens' rights, forms of self government will nevertheless transform deeply the town people allowing for the later rise of a new social class and marking "the end of the era of monks and knights".
Vivre dans l’Empire Ottoman. Sociabilités et relations intercommunautaires (XVIIIe-XXe siècles).. Georgeon, P. Dumont, eds) Vivre dans l’Empire Ottoman. Sociabilités et relations intercommunautaires (XVIIIe-XXe siècles). L’Harmattan, Paris 1997, 123-144., 1997
English abstract
The Making of Modern Thessaloniki. Stories, people, places
by Alexandra Yeroly... more English abstract
The Making of Modern Thessaloniki. Stories, people, places
by Alexandra Yerolympos
A journey through the major changes in Thessaloniki
03 May 2014 / 17:05:01 GRReporter
0
328 reads
Galery
1
Pictures www.kathimerini.gr The oldest known photograph of Thessaloniki welcomes readers of the new book by Aleka Karadimou-Gerolimpou (Alexandra Yerolympos). It was taken in 1863 in the area of Bestsinar in the western part of the city and depicts the sea wall and the tower of the pier. The picture was taken by Austrian photographer Dr Josef Szekely, who visited the city as part of an expedition to the Balkans of Ottomanist Johan Georg von Hahn.
Overgrown with more or less impressive minarets, this pre-modern Thessaloniki emitted something medieval and the eyes followed a long stretch of walls with characteristic serrated edges. Everything, or almost everything, started here, and then we got to the more intimate city of the 20th and 21st century. And this is the "journey" which architect and professor emeritus of the University of Thessaloniki Aleka Gerolimpou depicts in her new project entitled "The emergence of modern Thessaloniki: stories, people, landscapes," which is published by University Studio Press.
It contains 12 parts which selectively follow the major changes in Thessaloniki since 1870 (which is considered to be the beginning of the modern period) to the 21st century. Some of the texts have been published before, but are generally unknown to the general public.
In the second half of the book, the author's work is directed towards individuals in the history of the architecture of the city (the majority of whom have been more or less completely ignored by modern bibliography). Also, a mood of a novel dominates throughout the second half of the book – maybe because the lives of these individuals actually resembled novels. These include the French military engineer Joseph Plemper (1866-1947) who spent much of his life in the colonies (Indochina, Madagascar, Senegal, Sudan, etc.) and came to Thessaloniki in 1915. Plemper loved Greece and made Thessaloniki his second homeland, starting his career of an architect here at the age of 52, as part of the recovery of the city after the fire of 1917.
Thanks to Aleka Gerolimpou, non-specialists will have the opportunity to learn about significant people of Thessaloniki between the wars who, due to their work and passion, left traces on the face of the city, such as Anargiros Dimitrakopoulos (1885 - 1966), an engineer and a senior civil servant who is completely forgotten today, as well as Joseph Nehama (1881 - 1971), who was part of the Thessaloniki Jewish intelligentsia. Nehama never concealed his disappointment since he thought that the Greek state treated the Jews as second-class citizens (especially in the late 20s). A separate chapter is dedicated to Alexandros Papanastasiou (1876 - 1936), the inspirer of the new city planning and the establishment of the university, mainly as a transport minister in the government of Venizelos.
This is a book which offers both an academic and amateur look at the bibliography of modern Thessaloniki, by a woman who knows and loves this city.
- See more at: file:///C:/Users/Al/Desktop/kala%20logia/A%20journey%20through%20the%20major%20changes%20in%20Thessaloniki%20%20%20GRReporter.info-%20News%20from%20Greece%20-%20Breaking%20News,%20Business,%20Sport,%20Multimedia%20and%20Video..htm#sthash.E7ZoBjKw.dpuf
The changes undergone by the cities of what is now northern Greece in their final years under Ott... more The changes undergone by the cities of what is now northern Greece in their final years under Ottoman rule (1830-1912) and following the creation of the modern Greek state in the southern parts of the country are examined in the book. In general terms this period coincides with the reforms (tanzimat) which represented the Ottoman Empire’s great endeavour to mould a ‘European’ identity for itself and to transform the old theocratic society into a contemporary state on the western model. The city and the form it should assume were an important area of interest to the state as it pursued its reforms, an interest manifested in the creation of new institutions and instruments for urban planning. At the same time the various ethnic and religious communities became very actively engaged in the process, demanding the practical implementation of their newly acquired rights and emphasizing their own presence in the modernized townscape.
The urban space thus provides the historical researcher with a useful field in which to study the extent to which the proclamations of change were reflected in reality. At the same time interventions to modify the physical context of everyday life in the city both interpreted and reinforced changes in the ideology and social constitution of the different ethnic and religious groups which made up the urban populations.
The changes which occurred are both significant and profound; they mark the transition of the cities from pre-industrial introversion to an enlarged and more open contemporary community. They coincided with the dramatic geopolitical transformation, with the emergence of the modern nation states, which was occurring in the Balkan region. Yet hitherto these changes have not been easily identifiable in the urban environment itself. The massive restructuring which occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – involving changes in sovereignty, human resources, technological capacity, political and economic decisions – has effaced almost all material traces of the spatial interventions of this period – perhaps because of the brief duration of the reforms, their tentative character, and the absence of bold, long-term programmes, a natural consequence of the more general insecurity and uncertainty of the period.
Research into this watershed period, however, is often fascinating. Although still immersed in darkness and by no means rich in source material, it is a time of considerable interest, in terms not only of the comparisons to be drawn with processes under way at the same time in the cities of the modern Greek state, but also of the opportunity to explore the concept of modernization in itself, and its relationship with urban planning. Indeed, one of the hypotheses we shall be examining is that the main constituent of the changes identified in the urban space, within the wider context of the reforms, is the endeavour to cultivate a sense of belonging to the city; an endeavour which assumes a vital significance within the particular political circumstances and specific geographical context in which this process of modernization was taking place. Furthermore, as the contemporary form of the northern Greek cities owes much to developments which occurred in the late 19th century, our research may also provide information on the recent past of Greek cities in the area. However, a word of caution is necessary: the writer is all too aware that this was a historical period of considerable upheaval. Concentration on the urban setting may tend to suppress or conceal dramas being played out within or near to that setting. The reader should beware, then, of venturing to draw general conclusions on the Ottoman programme of modernization and should regard this book as a study of just one facet of the whole process of tanzimat.
Concerning the sources used in our research, it should be noted that the primary material is diverse and often not susceptible of corroboration from other sources. As the primary sources of information – municipal or prefectural archives – are by no means rich in evidence, the main sources we must resort to are the actual texts of planning legislation, maps, reports by Greek, French and English diplomats, a variety of material from private and public archives, and a reading of the Greek-language newspapers of the period. I have also studied the Greek, Anglo-American, French and Turkish bibliography. With certain exceptions, the bibliographical information is almost always indirect and, in any case, extremely fragmentary, rendering it very difficult to secure any continuity in the narrative of events. The same problem of continuity also arises in the primary evidence, and is exacerbated by the difficulty of securing access to the archives of the provincial administrations of the Ottoman Empire, which might allow us to form better grounded appraisals of the methods and specific procedures through which legislative measures were put into effect, how they determined - and were modified by - actual practice. Despite the gaps in our knowledge I believe that through a combination of evidence and hypothesis we can arrive at an overall view of the urban planning interventions of the period, a view which will become clearer as more monographs or broader studies of the cities of northern Greece are published.
In the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire, incorporated into the Greek state between 1912 and 1922, modernization in urban planning made only tentative progress in the period immediately after 1839. It gathered pace significantly after the 1860’s, benefiting from other important developments at that time, such as the growth of steam navigation and the introduction of rail links with Europe, the first appearance of the modern factory, the opening of banks, the reorganization of the public administration. We can divide the urban planning interventions in northern Greece into two major categories. The first covers the period 1839-1869, during which in some cases the laws were applied by the local authorities and met with universal resistance on the part of the citizens, while in other cases the implementation of the laws was demanded by the citizens in the face of official indifference or outright hostility. In the second period, from 1870 to roughly the end of the century, legislation is beginning to come into effect, with its possibilities and limitations becoming apparent. Within this period it is possible to identify a number of different phases, associated with particular historical circumstances, the nature of the interventions and the way in which the various innovations are greeted. Thus the 1870's may be regarded as the period in which the population became aware, slowly but surely, of the new possibilities, and began to put forward tentative demands. During the next period (1880-1890) there was general appreciation of the working of the new institutions and a desire for their expansion. Finally, from 1890 onwards the results of modernization, both positive and negative, begin to make themselves seen in the urban space – the results of a modernization which, in the turbulent events that were to change the course of history in this corner of the Balkans, was destined to remain incomplete.
"The making of new or the remaking of existing cities and settlements according to ‘modern’ -act... more "The making of new or the remaking of existing cities and settlements according to ‘modern’ -actually western- principles appears as a first priority for the governing elites in the emerging Balkan states in the 19th century. One cannot but be surprised by their hastiness and willingness to respond to requirements of their newly rising urban populations, promote innovating spatial forms that broke with centuries of practices and uses of urban space and proceed to great operations that reshaped the urban fabric.
Research has shown that reshaping of urban space can be an important agent of modernization. Urban historians have often insisted on the idea, that social class is directly related to easily recognizable social environments and ways of life; thus it acquires an almost physical substance. In the new nation-states in the Balkans, the rise of bourgeois elites resulted in demands for renewed urban space. What is worth reminding here is that all Balkan states rejected the medieval pre-industrial patterns of urban development and welcomed wholeheartedly the dominant cultural models of the West.
Westernisation as an all-embracing political goal was not restricted to the new Balkan states. The Ottoman Empire, undergoing reform since the 1850s, immediately regarded town remodelling as an efficient and tangible means to express the state’s will to modernise; cities appeared as a terrain par excellence for the implementation of new policies with regard to urban space, activities, and institutions. The aspiration for new urban space/patterns was not simply a demonstration of the political emancipation of the Balkan territories, but also a result of the urgent need of local populations to transcend traditional modes and ways of life in the city.
Thus the pursuit of modernity in the Balkan context goes beyond the effect of fashion and addresses a complex matter – the identity of this region, and the image the countries in the peninsula choose to give of themselves. Modernity plays a crucial role in shaping this image; it represents a central notion in the development of the Balkans in the nineteenth century, as well as during the next century. Eager to achieve political and cultural emancipation, to integrate the values of the West and to be recognized by it, the Balkans regarded modernity as the key access to these aspirations. Modernity equaled for this region the edification of independent nation –states – the ultimate aim for the peoples of the peninsula; but it also meant economical development and the shaping of a culture of prestige. In this complex category of representations, developing an urban culture played a major role in achieving modernization, due to its active effects on the shaping both of the social space and of the collective imaginary. By constituting an accomplished ‘urbanity’, with its appropriate urban space and architecture, but also with its urbane manners, modernity was literally built in the Balkans.
The first period of ‘international urbanism’ lasts until the end of the nineteenth century. Throughout the Balkans, more or less elaborate planning schemes and urban legislation, reflecting the contemporary state of the art, were prepared. The reasons behind this effort were practical, functional, and ideological. The new state would motivate production and economic activity, redistribute old and new inhabitants within the national territory, colonise abandoned regions, and, also build up its proper identity by creating its own urban environment. Urbanism was thus viewed as a vehicle of universally accepted principles, political freedom, economic progress, and social well-being, to be promoted through the form of the city. At the same time, all traces of Ottoman rule (identified to social and political underdevelopment) had to be erased from the urban fabric and landscape. In the struggle for political emancipation and social, economic, and cultural progress, ‘westernisation’ and ‘de-Ottomanisation’ appeared as two strongly interwoven objectives which spurred major planning initiatives. Appropriate planning legislation, along with specific operations, was included among the very first decisions of the new independent governments.
Balkan urbanism in the nineteenth century includes different types of operations, such as the creation of new national capitals (in Greece in the 1830s, in the other states after the 1870s), the planning of entirely new cities or reconstructions after total damage and the remodelling and expansion of existing settlements. Specific patterns of urbanization can explain the different priorities in every state involved. We shouldn’t forget that in the beginning of the nineteenth century Athens, Bucharest, Sofia and Belgrade had been provincial cities; the important urban centres in the Empire had been Constantinople/Istanbul, Thessaloniki/Salonika and Adrianople/Edirne.
In the beginning of the twentieth century the static city plans of the nineteenth century cannot cope with the rapid and unorderly urban development, the acute housing question, the lack of utilities and public amenities, the bad living conditions, and the relevant necessity to settle transport infrastructures, new industrial premises, central business and leisure districts, a well as different residential quarters for different social groups.
Following very closely the international developments in planning, large impressive plans were prepared (though not all of them fully implemented) and international architectural competitions were launched in Athens and Thessaloniki, Sofia and Plovdiv, Belgrade and Skopje, Bucharest, in Tirana too. Research has shown the noteworthy urban restructuring that took place in Bucharest and Belgrade.
Of particular interest is the plan of 1921 for Bucharest, that was inspired by the new planning ideals and supported by the planning law of 1893. It was actually prepared between 1914-1917. A global vision of the city was supported by innovative concepts: Development strategies for a longer time span, expansion projects and relation to the surrounding area, imposition of zoning principles. The main goal of the plan was the technical modernization of the city: Circulation, rational distribution of uses, norms and systems of public amenities, previsions for public open space, creation of large zones of social housing. The plan aimed to give Bucharest the image of a state capital in full economic growth.
On the contrary no major change was allowed to take place in Athens that was growing beyond any measures without an updated plan. Although well-known international experts architects were commissioned to prepare plans (the German L. Hoffmann, the British Th. Mawson handed in ambitious schemes), the plans were never adopted while the authorities were unable to control the anarchic growth."
"The book argues that state-building and nation-building are both linked to city-building in the ... more "The book argues that state-building and nation-building are both linked to city-building in the pursuit of modernity. At the same time new planning schemes obliterate traces of ethnic features and older modes of living, while they entail similar standardized spatial patterns and social amenities that transform and homogenize the traditional living space of the urban dwellers. Over time the city-building effort can contribute to establishing a transformed relationship between the state and the citizens. The newly formed cityscape is addressed to the local population, and is also exhibited to the outside world as a proof of national dynamism towards progress. The redesign of multi-ethnic Thessaloniki in 1917 offers an interesting illustration of this multifaceted form of spatial-social normalization. As an avant-garde operation that went far beyond the know-how of local expertise, it may be considered as the triumphant epilogue to the Balkan countries’ endeavor to affirm their ‘western’ orientation and profile through urban replanning.
The Thessaloniki experience also shows that modern town planning, as a convergence of reformist thought and theories about control of urban space, was adopted in Greece almost simultaneously with its first inclusion in operational planning in the West, in the early twentieth century. Thanks to a series of coincidences, it did not simply supply informed politicians or enlightened technocrats with rhetoric, but was actually implemented. In addition to the prevailing political and ideological considerations, it illustrated the firm belief of contemporary statesmen and reformers in ‘social engineering’, that is in the possibility of transforming traditional society through the implementation of new ‘physical’ patterns of space. This is perhaps the most important redesign operation in the Balkans before the 1960s.
Thessaloniki was under Ottoman rule since 1430 and until 1912. It was a densely populated city and a major commercial port and crossroads of the Balkans. In the beginning of the twentieth century, it accommodated a multilingual, multireligious society, living in separate neighbourhoods and quarters, with close-knit, ethnic-religious Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities, Jews being the most populous group. When the city was integrated into Greece at the end of the First Balkan War in 1912, it presented a complex image, partly oriental and partly ‘European’. New forms of social stratification were tending to gravitate outside the walls, while the city's ancient centre retained its inherited social structure formed centuries before. The Greek government immediately formed a committee to prepare plans for the embellishment of the city, but World War One put an end to the project.
In 1917, during the world war, a devastating fire destroyed the greater part of the historical centre, clearing away all the obstacles to change that an ossified, centuries-old urban structure could present, and facilitating the city's adaptation to its future role as a regional metropolis of the modern Greek state. The Liberal Party in office at the time under Eleftherios Venizelos, immediately decided to redesign the city by adopting entirely new spatial patterns in the urban fabric. This meant the complete overthrow of the old land ownership system and of existing patterns for the ethnic religious segregation (occupation and use) of space.
The new plan, entrusted to an international committee of architects and engineers proposed by French and British allies and the Greek government itself, was classical in form. The city was organised around a single major centre, with a green belt limit confining it to a surface area of 2,400 hectares (eight times as great as the old historical city) for a population forecast of 350,000 (as compared to the existing 170,000).
A political and economic centre (point fort) would be created with the function of directly organising socio-economic life and expressing the unitary authority of the state. Space was allotted for administrative and financial buildings (including courts, public offices, Stock Exchange, Chamber of Commerce) complying with specific architectural restrictions (ordinances), while the east end, a fashionable bourgeois suburb of the 1890s, was intended only for residential and recreational use. It stretched for 5 kilometres along the coast and consisted of high-income housing on the sea front, a shopping zone along the main artery, middle-income neighbourhoods inland divided by parks with watercourses running seawards, small neighbourhood centres with schools and kindergartens, and also space for sports and cultural facilities. A green belt surrounding the city ended in an ambitious seaside leisure centre on the south-east headland at the entrance to the bay.
The eastern and central sections were separated by a wide park, where a large university campus was to be located, along with entertainment areas including theatres, concert halls, and smart restaurants and cafés.
In the historical centre, the city’s ancient grid system was enriched with parallel thoroughfares and a system of diagonal thoroughfares, either linking Byzantine and other monuments or opening up vistas centred on them. A major innovation proposed by the Committee was an axis long of one kilometre, the Civic Boulevard, which linked two large squares: the first was conceived as an imposing civic centre with City Hall, court house, and government services; the second opened into a piazzetta on the sea front. This unified composition was reinforced by eclectic architectural programs. For the façades, the planners introduced the neo-byzantine style in an effort to establish a historical allusion to the city's illustrious past.
In an effort to preserve a part of the city’s traditional character, as he perceived it perfectly in line with French planning ideas of the 1920s, the chief planner Ernest Hébrard also proposed the integral conservation of the Upper City, as well as the rebuilding of the old covered markets (the bazaars) in a neo-byzantine style. But the conservation of the Upper City was indeed an exception; no other proposal favoured the preservation of old street or neighbourhood patterns or of architectural styles reminiscent of the city's oriental past. Five hundred years of history had to be erased and agreement on this point was unanimous.
Prescribed land uses, such as industry, wholesale trade, warehouses, essential transport facilities (goods and passenger railway station), and the port extension, workers' housing, retail commerce, shops and offices, middle- and high-income housing, and neighbourhood centres were organised in a spatial sequence that was inspired by the industrial organisation of production (Taylorist principles).
The old pattern of ethnic-religious spatial segregation was rearranged according to modern residential requirements. New quarters and neighbourhoods, all equipped with social amenities (schools, small parks and playgrounds, community centres, etc…) would wipe away recent and older ethnic-religious groupings and different cultural traditions. At the same time the creation of neighbourhoods specifically designed for different income groups (workers' garden suburbs, rich villa quarters, middle class apartments) enforced the process of gentrification and introduced patterns of socio-professional segregation in the residential areas. Workers' residential districts were planned according to garden-city principles, and proposed as social housing schemes.
The financial mechanisms of implementation of the scheme were expected to return to the community a high percentage of the surplus value of land created by the planning scheme itself, and to promote the involvement of the public sector in the organisation of space.
Efforts were made to document certain parts of the city’s historical past, mainly Roman and Byzantine, by giving prominence to selected historical buildings. It is worth noting that the architects succeeded to preserve some surviving ottoman baths, commercial premises and mosques in the new plan.
It was mainly Hébrard and the powerful cabinet minister Alexandros Papanastassiou who set their stamp on the whole scheme. Hébrard passionately believed that the new discipline could greatly help to accelerate social processes and promote modern modes of living in the world's underdeveloped countries, alongside the scope for experimentation which it also offered there. He was supported at a political level by Papanastassiou, a learned sociologist and a fervent social-democrat, who detected socialist features in the new ideas. He saw them as supporting the concept of community as opposed to private interest, developing the state’s interventionist role, and offering opportunities to pass measures of an essentially reformist nature. In this way, he attempted to use the legislation involved in the replanning of Thessaloniki as a vehicle of measures for genuine social reform. The total agreement of the town planner and the politician, and at the same time their lack of clear-sightedness as to the possible side effects of the plan's implementation, are crucial points in the understanding of Thessaloniki's replanning.
Illustrations for the paper "Ancient typologies and modern plans. Market streets and passages in ... more Illustrations for the paper "Ancient typologies and modern plans. Market streets and passages in the contemporary Greek city
_ Το σχέδιο του Ernest Hébrard (Eρνέστ Εμπράρ) για την Αθήνα είναι ίσως η λιγότερο γνωστή δουλειά... more _ Το σχέδιο του Ernest Hébrard (Eρνέστ Εμπράρ) για την Αθήνα είναι ίσως η λιγότερο γνωστή δουλειά του γάλλου πολεοδόμου στην Ελλάδα. Προτού ωστόσο παρουσιάσουμε την συνεισφορά του, θα πρέπει να αναφέρουμε σύντομα την κατάσταση που επικρατούσε στην πόλη στην πρώτη εικοσαετία του αιώνα, καθώς και τη συζήτηση που είχε ανοίξει για τις ανάγκες σχεδιασμού της πρωτεύουσας μεταξύ των ελλήνων ειδικών, στην οποία παρενέβησαν επίσης δύο γνωστές προσωπικότητες της διεθνούς αρχιτεκτονικής, ο γερμανός Ludwig Hoffmann και ο βρετανός Thomas Mawson (με τον οποίο, όπως σημειώνουμε σε άλλο κεφάλαιο, βρέθηκε να συνεργάζεται ο Εμπράρ, στο πλαίσιο της Επιτροπής Σχεδιασμού της Θεσσαλονίκης).
* Γραφτηκε στα γαλλικά to 2008, για να περιληφθεί σε τόμο με τίτλο Ernest Hébrard en Grèce, επιμ. Α. Γερόλυμπου.
Uploads
Papers by Alexandra Yerolympos
Thessaloniki, Annals of the Centre for the History of Thessaloniki, vol. 6, 2002, 273-292
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912).
Plans, residential patterns, community and private initiatives
The settlement patterns and the planning codes and guidelines by which city growth takes shape during the final years of Ottoman rule constitute an interesting issue that has not been studied thoroughly. In general the spatial aspects of colonisation policies, internal security issues, or intra-urban conflicts were disregarded. Since the middle of the 19th century however, the process of ‘westernisation’ in the Ottoman Empire, supported by reform measures, affected impressively urban development and expansion of urban areas and demanded the attention of the authorities.
At the institutional level city expansion was treated as private-business enterprise. Municipal Governments that had been set up in the second half of the 19th century were not expected to prepare plans for new quarters or to reserve land for public or community uses. Their task was simply to accept or reject the private proposals that were submitted and approved by the central authority and the Ministry of Commerce.
Nonetheless in Thessaloniki the Municipality will eventually publish a plan for the expansion of the city in 1889 and another one in the first decade of the 20th century. In this context the members of different ethno-religious communities appear quite active and respond positively to the prospect of creating improved residential and business premises in an environment that addresses more adequately their requirements. In the last part, the paper follows the intense activity of the Allatinis, the most prominent family of Thessaloniki, in their effort to acquire land in the outskirts of the city (more than 40 hectares), plan and create an attractive suburb.
Published in the Proceedings of the international symposium Thessaloniki in the Eve of 1912, organized by the Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki in September 2012, numerized edition 2015, p. 57-83 (in Greek)
+ 16 illustrations
The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to advice on important decisions to be taken about the Greek cities, the questions arise: Can Greece profit from this experience? Can an important agent of Barcelona’s achievements transmit his knowledge and assist the Greek authorities in their difficult task to control the growth and modernization of cities ? 13.12.2009
Thessaloniki, Annals of the Centre for the History of Thessaloniki, vol. 6, 2002, 273-292
The Making of extra-muros Thessaloniki (1870-1912).
Plans, residential patterns, community and private initiatives
The settlement patterns and the planning codes and guidelines by which city growth takes shape during the final years of Ottoman rule constitute an interesting issue that has not been studied thoroughly. In general the spatial aspects of colonisation policies, internal security issues, or intra-urban conflicts were disregarded. Since the middle of the 19th century however, the process of ‘westernisation’ in the Ottoman Empire, supported by reform measures, affected impressively urban development and expansion of urban areas and demanded the attention of the authorities.
At the institutional level city expansion was treated as private-business enterprise. Municipal Governments that had been set up in the second half of the 19th century were not expected to prepare plans for new quarters or to reserve land for public or community uses. Their task was simply to accept or reject the private proposals that were submitted and approved by the central authority and the Ministry of Commerce.
Nonetheless in Thessaloniki the Municipality will eventually publish a plan for the expansion of the city in 1889 and another one in the first decade of the 20th century. In this context the members of different ethno-religious communities appear quite active and respond positively to the prospect of creating improved residential and business premises in an environment that addresses more adequately their requirements. In the last part, the paper follows the intense activity of the Allatinis, the most prominent family of Thessaloniki, in their effort to acquire land in the outskirts of the city (more than 40 hectares), plan and create an attractive suburb.
Published in the Proceedings of the international symposium Thessaloniki in the Eve of 1912, organized by the Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki in September 2012, numerized edition 2015, p. 57-83 (in Greek)
+ 16 illustrations
The Greek government having invited the chief architect of Barcelona to advice on important decisions to be taken about the Greek cities, the questions arise: Can Greece profit from this experience? Can an important agent of Barcelona’s achievements transmit his knowledge and assist the Greek authorities in their difficult task to control the growth and modernization of cities ? 13.12.2009
The Making of Modern Thessaloniki. Stories, people, places
by Alexandra Yerolympos
A journey through the major changes in Thessaloniki
03 May 2014 / 17:05:01 GRReporter
0
328 reads
Galery
1
Pictures www.kathimerini.gr
The oldest known photograph of Thessaloniki welcomes readers of the new book by Aleka Karadimou-Gerolimpou (Alexandra Yerolympos). It was taken in 1863 in the area of Bestsinar in the western part of the city and depicts the sea wall and the tower of the pier. The picture was taken by Austrian photographer Dr Josef Szekely, who visited the city as part of an expedition to the Balkans of Ottomanist Johan Georg von Hahn.
Overgrown with more or less impressive minarets, this pre-modern Thessaloniki emitted something medieval and the eyes followed a long stretch of walls with characteristic serrated edges. Everything, or almost everything, started here, and then we got to the more intimate city of the 20th and 21st century. And this is the "journey" which architect and professor emeritus of the University of Thessaloniki Aleka Gerolimpou depicts in her new project entitled "The emergence of modern Thessaloniki: stories, people, landscapes," which is published by University Studio Press.
It contains 12 parts which selectively follow the major changes in Thessaloniki since 1870 (which is considered to be the beginning of the modern period) to the 21st century. Some of the texts have been published before, but are generally unknown to the general public.
In the second half of the book, the author's work is directed towards individuals in the history of the architecture of the city (the majority of whom have been more or less completely ignored by modern bibliography). Also, a mood of a novel dominates throughout the second half of the book – maybe because the lives of these individuals actually resembled novels. These include the French military engineer Joseph Plemper (1866-1947) who spent much of his life in the colonies (Indochina, Madagascar, Senegal, Sudan, etc.) and came to Thessaloniki in 1915. Plemper loved Greece and made Thessaloniki his second homeland, starting his career of an architect here at the age of 52, as part of the recovery of the city after the fire of 1917.
Thanks to Aleka Gerolimpou, non-specialists will have the opportunity to learn about significant people of Thessaloniki between the wars who, due to their work and passion, left traces on the face of the city, such as Anargiros Dimitrakopoulos (1885 - 1966), an engineer and a senior civil servant who is completely forgotten today, as well as Joseph Nehama (1881 - 1971), who was part of the Thessaloniki Jewish intelligentsia. Nehama never concealed his disappointment since he thought that the Greek state treated the Jews as second-class citizens (especially in the late 20s). A separate chapter is dedicated to Alexandros Papanastasiou (1876 - 1936), the inspirer of the new city planning and the establishment of the university, mainly as a transport minister in the government of Venizelos.
This is a book which offers both an academic and amateur look at the bibliography of modern Thessaloniki, by a woman who knows and loves this city.
- See more at: file:///C:/Users/Al/Desktop/kala%20logia/A%20journey%20through%20the%20major%20changes%20in%20Thessaloniki%20%20%20GRReporter.info-%20News%20from%20Greece%20-%20Breaking%20News,%20Business,%20Sport,%20Multimedia%20and%20Video..htm#sthash.E7ZoBjKw.dpuf
The urban space thus provides the historical researcher with a useful field in which to study the extent to which the proclamations of change were reflected in reality. At the same time interventions to modify the physical context of everyday life in the city both interpreted and reinforced changes in the ideology and social constitution of the different ethnic and religious groups which made up the urban populations.
The changes which occurred are both significant and profound; they mark the transition of the cities from pre-industrial introversion to an enlarged and more open contemporary community. They coincided with the dramatic geopolitical transformation, with the emergence of the modern nation states, which was occurring in the Balkan region. Yet hitherto these changes have not been easily identifiable in the urban environment itself. The massive restructuring which occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – involving changes in sovereignty, human resources, technological capacity, political and economic decisions – has effaced almost all material traces of the spatial interventions of this period – perhaps because of the brief duration of the reforms, their tentative character, and the absence of bold, long-term programmes, a natural consequence of the more general insecurity and uncertainty of the period.
Research into this watershed period, however, is often fascinating. Although still immersed in darkness and by no means rich in source material, it is a time of considerable interest, in terms not only of the comparisons to be drawn with processes under way at the same time in the cities of the modern Greek state, but also of the opportunity to explore the concept of modernization in itself, and its relationship with urban planning. Indeed, one of the hypotheses we shall be examining is that the main constituent of the changes identified in the urban space, within the wider context of the reforms, is the endeavour to cultivate a sense of belonging to the city; an endeavour which assumes a vital significance within the particular political circumstances and specific geographical context in which this process of modernization was taking place. Furthermore, as the contemporary form of the northern Greek cities owes much to developments which occurred in the late 19th century, our research may also provide information on the recent past of Greek cities in the area. However, a word of caution is necessary: the writer is all too aware that this was a historical period of considerable upheaval. Concentration on the urban setting may tend to suppress or conceal dramas being played out within or near to that setting. The reader should beware, then, of venturing to draw general conclusions on the Ottoman programme of modernization and should regard this book as a study of just one facet of the whole process of tanzimat.
Concerning the sources used in our research, it should be noted that the primary material is diverse and often not susceptible of corroboration from other sources. As the primary sources of information – municipal or prefectural archives – are by no means rich in evidence, the main sources we must resort to are the actual texts of planning legislation, maps, reports by Greek, French and English diplomats, a variety of material from private and public archives, and a reading of the Greek-language newspapers of the period. I have also studied the Greek, Anglo-American, French and Turkish bibliography. With certain exceptions, the bibliographical information is almost always indirect and, in any case, extremely fragmentary, rendering it very difficult to secure any continuity in the narrative of events. The same problem of continuity also arises in the primary evidence, and is exacerbated by the difficulty of securing access to the archives of the provincial administrations of the Ottoman Empire, which might allow us to form better grounded appraisals of the methods and specific procedures through which legislative measures were put into effect, how they determined - and were modified by - actual practice. Despite the gaps in our knowledge I believe that through a combination of evidence and hypothesis we can arrive at an overall view of the urban planning interventions of the period, a view which will become clearer as more monographs or broader studies of the cities of northern Greece are published.
In the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire, incorporated into the Greek state between 1912 and 1922, modernization in urban planning made only tentative progress in the period immediately after 1839. It gathered pace significantly after the 1860’s, benefiting from other important developments at that time, such as the growth of steam navigation and the introduction of rail links with Europe, the first appearance of the modern factory, the opening of banks, the reorganization of the public administration. We can divide the urban planning interventions in northern Greece into two major categories. The first covers the period 1839-1869, during which in some cases the laws were applied by the local authorities and met with universal resistance on the part of the citizens, while in other cases the implementation of the laws was demanded by the citizens in the face of official indifference or outright hostility. In the second period, from 1870 to roughly the end of the century, legislation is beginning to come into effect, with its possibilities and limitations becoming apparent. Within this period it is possible to identify a number of different phases, associated with particular historical circumstances, the nature of the interventions and the way in which the various innovations are greeted. Thus the 1870's may be regarded as the period in which the population became aware, slowly but surely, of the new possibilities, and began to put forward tentative demands. During the next period (1880-1890) there was general appreciation of the working of the new institutions and a desire for their expansion. Finally, from 1890 onwards the results of modernization, both positive and negative, begin to make themselves seen in the urban space – the results of a modernization which, in the turbulent events that were to change the course of history in this corner of the Balkans, was destined to remain incomplete.
Research has shown that reshaping of urban space can be an important agent of modernization. Urban historians have often insisted on the idea, that social class is directly related to easily recognizable social environments and ways of life; thus it acquires an almost physical substance. In the new nation-states in the Balkans, the rise of bourgeois elites resulted in demands for renewed urban space. What is worth reminding here is that all Balkan states rejected the medieval pre-industrial patterns of urban development and welcomed wholeheartedly the dominant cultural models of the West.
Westernisation as an all-embracing political goal was not restricted to the new Balkan states. The Ottoman Empire, undergoing reform since the 1850s, immediately regarded town remodelling as an efficient and tangible means to express the state’s will to modernise; cities appeared as a terrain par excellence for the implementation of new policies with regard to urban space, activities, and institutions. The aspiration for new urban space/patterns was not simply a demonstration of the political emancipation of the Balkan territories, but also a result of the urgent need of local populations to transcend traditional modes and ways of life in the city.
Thus the pursuit of modernity in the Balkan context goes beyond the effect of fashion and addresses a complex matter – the identity of this region, and the image the countries in the peninsula choose to give of themselves. Modernity plays a crucial role in shaping this image; it represents a central notion in the development of the Balkans in the nineteenth century, as well as during the next century. Eager to achieve political and cultural emancipation, to integrate the values of the West and to be recognized by it, the Balkans regarded modernity as the key access to these aspirations. Modernity equaled for this region the edification of independent nation –states – the ultimate aim for the peoples of the peninsula; but it also meant economical development and the shaping of a culture of prestige. In this complex category of representations, developing an urban culture played a major role in achieving modernization, due to its active effects on the shaping both of the social space and of the collective imaginary. By constituting an accomplished ‘urbanity’, with its appropriate urban space and architecture, but also with its urbane manners, modernity was literally built in the Balkans.
The first period of ‘international urbanism’ lasts until the end of the nineteenth century. Throughout the Balkans, more or less elaborate planning schemes and urban legislation, reflecting the contemporary state of the art, were prepared. The reasons behind this effort were practical, functional, and ideological. The new state would motivate production and economic activity, redistribute old and new inhabitants within the national territory, colonise abandoned regions, and, also build up its proper identity by creating its own urban environment. Urbanism was thus viewed as a vehicle of universally accepted principles, political freedom, economic progress, and social well-being, to be promoted through the form of the city. At the same time, all traces of Ottoman rule (identified to social and political underdevelopment) had to be erased from the urban fabric and landscape. In the struggle for political emancipation and social, economic, and cultural progress, ‘westernisation’ and ‘de-Ottomanisation’ appeared as two strongly interwoven objectives which spurred major planning initiatives. Appropriate planning legislation, along with specific operations, was included among the very first decisions of the new independent governments.
Balkan urbanism in the nineteenth century includes different types of operations, such as the creation of new national capitals (in Greece in the 1830s, in the other states after the 1870s), the planning of entirely new cities or reconstructions after total damage and the remodelling and expansion of existing settlements. Specific patterns of urbanization can explain the different priorities in every state involved. We shouldn’t forget that in the beginning of the nineteenth century Athens, Bucharest, Sofia and Belgrade had been provincial cities; the important urban centres in the Empire had been Constantinople/Istanbul, Thessaloniki/Salonika and Adrianople/Edirne.
In the beginning of the twentieth century the static city plans of the nineteenth century cannot cope with the rapid and unorderly urban development, the acute housing question, the lack of utilities and public amenities, the bad living conditions, and the relevant necessity to settle transport infrastructures, new industrial premises, central business and leisure districts, a well as different residential quarters for different social groups.
Following very closely the international developments in planning, large impressive plans were prepared (though not all of them fully implemented) and international architectural competitions were launched in Athens and Thessaloniki, Sofia and Plovdiv, Belgrade and Skopje, Bucharest, in Tirana too. Research has shown the noteworthy urban restructuring that took place in Bucharest and Belgrade.
Of particular interest is the plan of 1921 for Bucharest, that was inspired by the new planning ideals and supported by the planning law of 1893. It was actually prepared between 1914-1917. A global vision of the city was supported by innovative concepts: Development strategies for a longer time span, expansion projects and relation to the surrounding area, imposition of zoning principles. The main goal of the plan was the technical modernization of the city: Circulation, rational distribution of uses, norms and systems of public amenities, previsions for public open space, creation of large zones of social housing. The plan aimed to give Bucharest the image of a state capital in full economic growth.
On the contrary no major change was allowed to take place in Athens that was growing beyond any measures without an updated plan. Although well-known international experts architects were commissioned to prepare plans (the German L. Hoffmann, the British Th. Mawson handed in ambitious schemes), the plans were never adopted while the authorities were unable to control the anarchic growth."
The Thessaloniki experience also shows that modern town planning, as a convergence of reformist thought and theories about control of urban space, was adopted in Greece almost simultaneously with its first inclusion in operational planning in the West, in the early twentieth century. Thanks to a series of coincidences, it did not simply supply informed politicians or enlightened technocrats with rhetoric, but was actually implemented. In addition to the prevailing political and ideological considerations, it illustrated the firm belief of contemporary statesmen and reformers in ‘social engineering’, that is in the possibility of transforming traditional society through the implementation of new ‘physical’ patterns of space. This is perhaps the most important redesign operation in the Balkans before the 1960s.
Thessaloniki was under Ottoman rule since 1430 and until 1912. It was a densely populated city and a major commercial port and crossroads of the Balkans. In the beginning of the twentieth century, it accommodated a multilingual, multireligious society, living in separate neighbourhoods and quarters, with close-knit, ethnic-religious Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities, Jews being the most populous group. When the city was integrated into Greece at the end of the First Balkan War in 1912, it presented a complex image, partly oriental and partly ‘European’. New forms of social stratification were tending to gravitate outside the walls, while the city's ancient centre retained its inherited social structure formed centuries before. The Greek government immediately formed a committee to prepare plans for the embellishment of the city, but World War One put an end to the project.
In 1917, during the world war, a devastating fire destroyed the greater part of the historical centre, clearing away all the obstacles to change that an ossified, centuries-old urban structure could present, and facilitating the city's adaptation to its future role as a regional metropolis of the modern Greek state. The Liberal Party in office at the time under Eleftherios Venizelos, immediately decided to redesign the city by adopting entirely new spatial patterns in the urban fabric. This meant the complete overthrow of the old land ownership system and of existing patterns for the ethnic religious segregation (occupation and use) of space.
The new plan, entrusted to an international committee of architects and engineers proposed by French and British allies and the Greek government itself, was classical in form. The city was organised around a single major centre, with a green belt limit confining it to a surface area of 2,400 hectares (eight times as great as the old historical city) for a population forecast of 350,000 (as compared to the existing 170,000).
A political and economic centre (point fort) would be created with the function of directly organising socio-economic life and expressing the unitary authority of the state. Space was allotted for administrative and financial buildings (including courts, public offices, Stock Exchange, Chamber of Commerce) complying with specific architectural restrictions (ordinances), while the east end, a fashionable bourgeois suburb of the 1890s, was intended only for residential and recreational use. It stretched for 5 kilometres along the coast and consisted of high-income housing on the sea front, a shopping zone along the main artery, middle-income neighbourhoods inland divided by parks with watercourses running seawards, small neighbourhood centres with schools and kindergartens, and also space for sports and cultural facilities. A green belt surrounding the city ended in an ambitious seaside leisure centre on the south-east headland at the entrance to the bay.
The eastern and central sections were separated by a wide park, where a large university campus was to be located, along with entertainment areas including theatres, concert halls, and smart restaurants and cafés.
In the historical centre, the city’s ancient grid system was enriched with parallel thoroughfares and a system of diagonal thoroughfares, either linking Byzantine and other monuments or opening up vistas centred on them. A major innovation proposed by the Committee was an axis long of one kilometre, the Civic Boulevard, which linked two large squares: the first was conceived as an imposing civic centre with City Hall, court house, and government services; the second opened into a piazzetta on the sea front. This unified composition was reinforced by eclectic architectural programs. For the façades, the planners introduced the neo-byzantine style in an effort to establish a historical allusion to the city's illustrious past.
In an effort to preserve a part of the city’s traditional character, as he perceived it perfectly in line with French planning ideas of the 1920s, the chief planner Ernest Hébrard also proposed the integral conservation of the Upper City, as well as the rebuilding of the old covered markets (the bazaars) in a neo-byzantine style. But the conservation of the Upper City was indeed an exception; no other proposal favoured the preservation of old street or neighbourhood patterns or of architectural styles reminiscent of the city's oriental past. Five hundred years of history had to be erased and agreement on this point was unanimous.
Prescribed land uses, such as industry, wholesale trade, warehouses, essential transport facilities (goods and passenger railway station), and the port extension, workers' housing, retail commerce, shops and offices, middle- and high-income housing, and neighbourhood centres were organised in a spatial sequence that was inspired by the industrial organisation of production (Taylorist principles).
The old pattern of ethnic-religious spatial segregation was rearranged according to modern residential requirements. New quarters and neighbourhoods, all equipped with social amenities (schools, small parks and playgrounds, community centres, etc…) would wipe away recent and older ethnic-religious groupings and different cultural traditions. At the same time the creation of neighbourhoods specifically designed for different income groups (workers' garden suburbs, rich villa quarters, middle class apartments) enforced the process of gentrification and introduced patterns of socio-professional segregation in the residential areas. Workers' residential districts were planned according to garden-city principles, and proposed as social housing schemes.
The financial mechanisms of implementation of the scheme were expected to return to the community a high percentage of the surplus value of land created by the planning scheme itself, and to promote the involvement of the public sector in the organisation of space.
Efforts were made to document certain parts of the city’s historical past, mainly Roman and Byzantine, by giving prominence to selected historical buildings. It is worth noting that the architects succeeded to preserve some surviving ottoman baths, commercial premises and mosques in the new plan.
It was mainly Hébrard and the powerful cabinet minister Alexandros Papanastassiou who set their stamp on the whole scheme. Hébrard passionately believed that the new discipline could greatly help to accelerate social processes and promote modern modes of living in the world's underdeveloped countries, alongside the scope for experimentation which it also offered there. He was supported at a political level by Papanastassiou, a learned sociologist and a fervent social-democrat, who detected socialist features in the new ideas. He saw them as supporting the concept of community as opposed to private interest, developing the state’s interventionist role, and offering opportunities to pass measures of an essentially reformist nature. In this way, he attempted to use the legislation involved in the replanning of Thessaloniki as a vehicle of measures for genuine social reform. The total agreement of the town planner and the politician, and at the same time their lack of clear-sightedness as to the possible side effects of the plan's implementation, are crucial points in the understanding of Thessaloniki's replanning.
"
* Γραφτηκε στα γαλλικά to 2008, για να περιληφθεί σε τόμο με τίτλο Ernest Hébrard en Grèce, επιμ. Α. Γερόλυμπου.