CHANGING RURAL CHARACTER RELATED TO URBAN
GROWTH IN MUÐLA, KARABAÐLAR
Feray Koca
Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
fkoca@metu.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
Urban growth and speculative housing development on rural areas, especially at urban
fringes cause transformation of ownership relations, deterioration of traditional pattern
and landscape character. The rapid increase of population in cities necessitates new housing demands and this need is met by peripheral rural lands. This urban development
process occurs as urban sprawl through rural areas. Karabaðlar is a traditional rural settlement in the vicinity of the town of Muðla and it is registered as third degree natural site.
It carries unique vernacular features such as special outstanding landscape components,
traditional houses that are part of the typical domestic architecture and ownership pattern
that create the cultural heritage. The land-use character is based on agriculture. The misuse of lands, new housing demands of urban residents and secondary housing related with
urban growth in Karabaðlar resulted in urban pressure on the area. This situation put forth
the necessity of ecological and cultural preservation of the lands of Karabaðlar settlement
against housing speculation. The aim of this paper is to determine the pressure of the
urban growth and construction of urban settlement on rural areas and degeneration of traditional pattern in Muðla, Karabaðlar in a historical process. The requirement for preservation of rural, agricultural or natural lands, spatial layout and cultural heritage of
Karabaðlar and sustainability is remarked.
Keywords: Urban Growth, Cultural Heritage, Speculative Housing Development, Sustainability
INTRODUCTION
In spite of long urban development period, new housing demands and the need of
urban development area, owing to the rapid increase of population has been the
cause of a rapid urban growth and urban sprawl. Cities and towns spread into the
679
Feray Koca
surrounding countryside and transformed farms and villages into new housing
development areas such that the new houses are constructed amidst fields.
The problems arose from the process of urban growth and rapid urbanization has
been key factors for the uncontrolled rent increase on peripheral lands of the
cities. In addition, Radeloff et al. (2003) indicates that the housing development
and urbanization are key factors for human domination on biodiversity by
increasing road density, land-use intensity and recreational activities, also. Related to these factors, some of the settlements at the peripheries of the cities became
a transition zone between urban and rural life. Although these rural areas have
been a buffer zone for the urban sprawl, they have also obtained a potential of
being new urban development area. The villages and farms are linked with cities
and towns by forming a landscape of diffused development. Dispersed type of
urban development has affected on the land use character of the rural areas, especially the agricultural and protected lands of rural landscape (Maestas et al,
2001). This speculative urban growth has changed the characteristics of the rural
settlements in terms of socio-spatial components.
The character of the landscape possesses the quality of landscape, which necessitates the preservation of unique cultural or biological resources and formations
(Altman & Wohlwill, 1983). As urbanization spread through countryside, the
necessity of protected rural landscapes and controlled urban growth is recognized
for the continuity of spatial rural patterns and landscape character. As Qadeer
(2002) states, the form of sprawl type of urban development through rural areas
may vary depending on the historical settlement pattern and changes from region
to region. In this respect, identification of the unique characteristic of the rural
settlement according to location and historical process is prominent in order to
maintain the sustainability of the area.
Vineyards and farmyards have been the typical examples of traditional rural settlements in Anatolian peninsula for years. When we investigate their main role in
human life, we observe that these rural settlements have become places for summer life for urban dwellers since nomadic times till now (Cengizkan, 2002). This
kind of lifestyle identifies the formation and characteristics of the traditional rural
settlements. The aforementioned urban growth problems are threats for the traditional rural settlements in Turkey in terms of spatial form of the settlements, cultural habits of the inhabitants, lifestyle, open space amenities and ecological formation.
One of the traditional rural settlements under the pressure of urban sprawl is the
setting of Karabaðlar in Muðla. The aim of this paper is to analyze the urban
growth problematic on the rural lands of Karabaðlar and to identify the transforming setting in terms of cultural, social and physical changes in historical
process. It marks the degeneration of the traditional pattern and interventions to
680
1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference
Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 2006
the spatial layout of the settlement. It focuses on the necessity of preservation of
the rural character of the settlement in terms of cultural heritage, socio-spatial
amenities, natural landscape and agricultural activities. The paper concludes to
remark the importance of sustainable planning of rural settlements.
THE SOCIO-SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF KARABAÐLAR
Karabaðlar locates in the vicinity of Muðla town at the southwestern side of
Turkey. It is a rural settlement located on a plain closed with mountains in Menteþe region. It is about 660 km high from the sea level. According to geomorphologic structure, Karabaðlar Plain is formed by tectonic and karstik movements. It
means that the surface water is moved with underground tunnels and river patterns to the sea (Gökova Bay). Figure 1 shows the location of Karabaðlar according to Gökova Bay.
Karabaðlar is 4 km away from Muðla on the eastern side separated from Muðla
town with Hamursuz Hill. It is surrounded with Düðerek District, Kötekli Village,
and Ortaköy Village (Figure 2). Denizli Road separates Karabaðlar into two parts
by passing through fields of Karabaðlar.
Figure 1. The Location of Karabaðlar Reference to Gökova Bay
Karabaðlar is rural settlement where the agriculture has been the source of life for
years. The socio-spatial and cultural formation and traditional pattern gives a
rural character; however it can be accepted as countryside more than a village
because of its spatial layout. The agricultural production is the main economic
681
Feray Koca
activity at self-sufficient level. The seasonal migration is the cyclical activity happens in both winter and summer as the outcome of economic conditions favoring
the accumulation of livestock and food supply (Cribb, 1991).
Figure 2. Karabaðlar and The Surrounding Villages. Source: Adapted and Redrawn from
the Conservation Oriented Development Plan (Municipality of Muðla, 2003).
Figure 3. Panoramic Views of Karabaðlar Landscape
682
1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference
Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 2006
Population of Karabaðlar is approximately 4.000 and the house stock is determined as 1.175 by Muðla State Institute of Statistics. It is a large plain spreads
over an area of 15,5km2 (Figure 3). Although it is a plain geomorphologically,
the local inhabitants of the settlement call it as Karabaðlar Plateau because of its
cool climate. Aran (2000) points out the scattered miniature cubic houses and
one- five-acre horticultural flatlands of Karabaðlar landscape.
In 1977, Karabaðlar was registered as third grade natural site that must be preserved according to its rural character, natural and cultural assets and cultural heritage. In January 2003, Muðla Municipality approved a conservation plan prepared by Dokuz Eylül University, City and Regional Planning Department. The
aim of the plan was to regulate the density of summerhouses.
The distinct spatial character of the settlement is based on the domestic architecture and vernacular landscape components such as yurt, irim, kesik, kabalýk,
düden; and its historical mosques and coffee houses as the focal points. All the
components both landscape and architectural are in great unity and harmony that
the initial settlers of Karabaðlar thought the details of the settlement in order to
create their friendly living environment. As Aran (2000) suggests the initial settlement process in Anatolia, the inhabitants of that rural settlement have considered traditional requirements, place and climate factors, sensibility and harmony
with nature. Therefore, rural buildings have natural characteristics of representing the inhabitants’ lifestyles and culture. Rural buildings represent the interaction between human behaviors, building and natural environment. We see this
interaction and harmony entirely in Karabaðlar.
CHANGING BALANCES IN KARABAÐLAR IN HISTORICAL
PROCESS
Kuban (1995) notices that the cities in Anatolia and the Balkans kept their
medieval physiognomy and many of them were fortified until the Pax Ottomana
after 15th century. When the cities started to develop outside the walls, the new
settlers and the nomads led to transformation of the cities, they settled outside the
walls, and new quarters were set up in open lands of rural areas (Tekeli, 1993).
This suggestion explains the first settling of Karabaðlar outside the Muðla Town
fortress (Hisar) that gives its name to the mountain (Hisar or Asar Mountain).
The name Karabaðlar comes from dense shady black tree structure of the area,
which constitutes a dark color and from planted grapes and vineyards. According
to Evliya Çelebi, Karabaðlar was consisted of vineyards and dark green black
trees. He cited 11 thousand vineyards and pattern of roads, which did not get any
sunlight inside because of dense and shady trees throughout the road in his travel book after he visited Karabaðlar and its surrounding in 1671.
683
Feray Koca
Karabaðlar settlement has a characteristic of scattered houses on one-five acre
horticultural flatlands. Every 3.000 m2-5.000 m2 flatland, which is composed of
a field, a well and a house or a wooden hut, is called as yurt. The origin of yurt
most probably comes from the circular tent of the nomads, which was the first
prototype of residential architecture for Turcoman nomads (Sözen & Eruzun,
1992). According to Kuban (1995), the idea of centrality can be accepted as identical for both the circular tent (yurt) and centrally planned traditional Turkish
house. However, we determine that a piece of land with a field, house and a well
is identical with nomadic tent (yurt) in Karabaðlar. The reason of this different
understanding of yurt in Karabaðlar may be the public appropriation of the field
and house as undivided structure of their social life and culture.
Yurtlar are separated from one another with 1 m - 2 m width and 1.5 m - 2 m high
trees and shrubs on a soil heap, which is called kesik (Koca, 2004). The trees and
shrubs on the kesikler growing on the corners of yurtlar are called kabalýk. Rainwater that comes from yurt and kesikler is collected in the space between kesikler called as irim. Irimler are used as road to cross from one yurt to another as
well as providing drainage (Figure 4). The excess water that sometimes causes
flooding in Karabaðlar is also drained by well-like geological formations called
düdenler. These wells are then connected to long underground tunnels that help
carry the water to the sea.
According to the information derived from wakf documents, most of the traditional buildings in Karabaðlar were constructed at the beginning of 19th century
and some of them are estimated to be constructed before 19th century. The most
well known example to the 19th century buildings in Karabaðlar are coffee houses and small masques. Most of them are registered as the example of civilian
architecture. Nineteen coffee houses in Karabaðlar have engendered a traditional
life among the residents by clustering yurtlar around themselves. These coffee
houses also determined the name of neighborhood area in which coffee houses
were located. Service buildings are assembled around these coffee houses, too.
Monumental plane trees that specified the location of coffee houses is another
characteristic of the settlement. Most of them are more than 1000 years old today.
The yurts are the main structural component of Karabaðlar, which are located
side by side and around coffee houses. Houses in every yurt are located at the corner of the lands to benefit from the farmland in the best way. The traditional houses of Karabaðlar, all of one are the example of domestic architecture has similar
introverted plan characteristics of the traditional Muðla houses (Tekeli, 1993)
(Figure 5). The initial buildings were called as shelters between 17th and 19th
century because these one-storey buildings were composed of one or two rooms
and made of wood. Kuban (1995) explains the evolution of shelter (the nomadic
yurt) to a house and the gradual increase in the building density as the work of
centuries.
684
1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference
Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 2006
Figure 4. Irimler and Kesikler
Figure 5. Examples of Traditional Houses in Karabaðlar.
685
Feray Koca
Karabaðlar is a specific example to the changing land-society and ownership relations after the first settlement movements of Turcoman nomads. The politics of
Ottoman Empire, changing habits in agricultural production, the life styles of new
comers, and technological developments in the period of Republic and then speculative housing developments have been effective on the restructuring of the
ownership pattern of Karabaðlar in about 3000 years period. Since 15th century,
we witness the negative effects of transformation of possession into ownership as
the deterioration of irims and kesiks, abandonment of agricultural production,
identification of ownership boundaries, new changes that enhance the value of
private ownership, but do not conform to traditional pattern.
In Analytic Study of Muðla-Karabaðlar Urban and Natural Site (2002), the initial
settlement process is considered that Turcoman nomads, living near Kütahya,
move to southern part of Anatolia because of drought after the settlements of
Turks in Anatolia. However, Cribb (1991) clarifies the adjustment of nomadic
pastoralizm to sedentary settlement as the order seeking of political power more
than an ecological balance, therefore the sedentary settlement movements starts
in the 17th century. They first settle down in Menteþe region. Some of them settle down at the skirts of the mountain situated in the north of Karabaðlar and
Düðerek. Then, they move toward the shady and dense vegetated Karabaðlar and
settled in. As a result of sedentary movements, some complex of buildings
(mosque, fountain, small mosque) was constructed by foundations. At the end of
19th century, coffee houses were constructed as common spaces in order to serve
travelers with camels who provided transportation of agricultural production.
In 19th century, we see private ownerships as independent small farm managements that are accepted as the basis of Land Edict (Arazi Kanunnamesi) of 1858.
This legislation indented to prevent transformation of lands into farmstead of
some certain influential persons; however, it could not be able to prevent emergence of some warriors granted with a fief (týmarlý sipahi) as powerful landowners in rural areas of Muðla and its neighborhood. It is clear that the ownership pattern of 19th century lands and the products gained from these fields guaranteed
capital accumulation to powerful landowner families (Tekeli, 1993).
At the end of 19th century and at the beginning of 20th century, tobacco plantation was seen in Karabaðlar. Although plantation of tobacco was not the job of
Turks, it is known that they planted it because of the demands of English market.
According to Keyder and Tabak (1998), the property right is exchanged from
ayanlar (provincial notables) to nomads. Ayanlar bought the small agricultural
enterprises in order to establish large farmsteads. The nomads were the basic
farmers who provide the agricultural production of 19th century and ayanlar
were employing the nomads from Aegean islands, nomadic tribes and migrants
who came from east Anatolia. Lands were given to the nomads in order to make
686
1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference
Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 2006
them settled but they were working for ayanlar at first. Nevertheless, the nomads
hedged their land boundaries and got the property rights of these lands later. With
the transformation of state owned lands into private ownership, powerful
landowners became richer with their land incomes.
We see the negative effects of tobacco plantation on the ownership pattern evidently in terms of changing habits and spatial organization. The tobacco yeomen
brought workers from near villages in order to meet their accommodation needs;
they built stone houses that do not suit the traditional building structure of
Karabaðlar. These one-storey houses have flat roofs and extend through the road.
They were enclosed with walls. Tobacco yeomen bought more than one yurt and
they joined them under an ownership. Owing to tobacco production, firstly, the
vineyards disappeared, and then the sizes of the yurtlar enlarged (Sapmaz, 1996).
At the beginning of 20th century, the lands of Karabaðlar subdivided and their
owners changed. After 1923, the property rights of large farmsteads are transferred from yeomen to local residents.
Technological developments were another factor that affected ownership relations in Muðla. In 1900s, the plow was started to be used instead of primitive
plow; later in 1950s, we see the first use of tractor and other vehicles in the fields
of Muðla. At the end of 1960s, the pace of technological improvements speed up
the transportation developments and at the end of 1970s, the automobiles entered
into Karabaðlar life. Autobuses started their tours in Karabaðlar. Roads were
filled with material and heightened in order to avoid from the drainage water.
However, this intervention resulted in the damage of drainage system linked with
irimler.
In 1970s, the emergence of new professions resulted in the change of socio-economic life in Karabaðlar. New generation preferred to live in the city entirely so
some of them let yurtlar take care of themselves and some of them sold their yurtlar to new comers who were part of a different culture and social life. These new
comers changed the elements of their built and natural environment by trimming
kesikler, widening irimler and enclosure of their ownership with wire or wooden
fences and stonewall. Some of them preferred to build huge and showy village
houses by demolishing unpretentious, naturally well-adjusted traditional houses.
This exchange of ownership has been the most important factor that damages the
natural character of the settlement.
After the second half of 1950s, the popularity of sea holidays, holiday villages
and coastal settlements turned into summerhouse tourism by turning towards
inside regions and plateaus (Cengizkan, 2002). In addition, the crowdedness in
coastal settlements directed people towards rural life again. At the beginning of
1980s, when the secondary house ownership became the indication of richness,
687
Feray Koca
high-income groups of the cities started to buy yurtlar from Karabaðlar. These
groups were not in trouble of agricultural production, they transformed the fields
into hobby gardens and large grass areas replaced the traditional courtyards.
Recreational facilities related to secondary houses have changed the land use
character of the settlement.
Since 19th century until now, we see how the speculative alterations related to
urban growth have transformed the ownership relations in Karabaðlar. Today,
speculative housing development over rural areas rising with secondary housing
is a reason lying behind the diminishing of farmlands in Karabaðlar. In addition,
the demands for secondary house ownership of city-dwellers cause the rise of the
number of residential units on farmlands. The increase of population and inadequate dwelling units in city causes sprawl of the city through Karabaðlar. However, the cultural organization on a specific geography and the organization of
spaces according to lifestyles are the values should be preserved in order to provide the continuity of initial character of the Karabaðlar settlement.
CONCLUSION
Urbanization, housing development, modernization have transformed the overall
rural character and pattern of the vernacular settlements. Within this transformation, the socio-cultural changes in addition physical changes have modified the
vernacular form of the rural settlements. These uncharacteristic spatial attributes
contradicting with the existing traditional pattern brought the conservation problematic of rural character to the consideration. Because of the countryside concept, we see a special concern on conservation of rural landscape especially in
England. There are noteworthy researches on this subject and conservation organizations and groups, which determine the planning objectives and policies in England and America.
In terms of planning and design objectives for conservation of rural character
Cloke (1983) defines conservation aim of ‘villages of special overall character as
follows: “The conservation and enhancement of general character and appearance
would be the primary planning objective. In general, new development would be
restricted to minor infilling and, in any event, would be required to be of a high
standard of design, in sympathy with the existing village character” (Cloke,
1983).
Gilbert (1971) suggests that rural hinterlands would continue to be farmed; however, in order to secure farmlands from recreational pressures. The rural areas
should not be turned into empty wilderness. He claims that the aim of conservation should be to isolate beauty of rural, to provide the remoteness and high visual quality of farmlands.
688
1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference
Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 2006
According to Harvey and Works (2002), exurban developments and hobby farming are arising problems of urban growth. Land-use changes in rural areas concerning urban and rural residents’ suggestions are regarding urban growth boundary. Urban Growth Boundaries function as transitional landscape like greenbelts
and they prevent spread of sub-urbanization outside of boundaries. Weller (1967)
states the necessity of greenbelts for definition of rural and urban boundaries,
especially to have a clear division between recreational and farm lands. These
greenbelts may be agricultural or recreational in character.
Most of the countries solved the problem of aforementioned land use contradictions with incentives like tax reduction/exemption and land-use controls like purchase and transfer of development rights and zoning procedure. However, the
conservation of rural character stands as the main problematic statement for the
conservation policies.
The physical and ecological landscape of rural areas acquires socio-economiccultural characters with land-society relations and settlement movements. Rural
settlements shelter agricultural lands, historical buildings and environments that
have symbolic meanings and they reflect the social preferences and admirations
of the inhabitants. In Karabaðlar, there are various reasons of urban expansion,
but the physically the proximity of Karabaðlar to the urban area has been effective for urban growth. The main features that strength uniqueness of Karabaðlar
are the ownership pattern consisted of private ownerships, specific road network,
traditional houses, variety of vegetation, high water table, self-sufficient agricultural production, intimate relationship of residents and their traditions. However,
the rural settlement is in the course of transition into an urban residential settlement of Muðla. Speculative urban growth, changing ownership pattern and cultural habits, misuse of lands, second house demands of urban residents in
Karabaðlar resulted in urban encroachment on the area. The spatial layout and
socio-cultural context is changing day by day. The landscape of Karabaðlar offers
a wide variety of functions as well as a unique cultural phenomenon. In this
respect, the sustainability of rural character and cultural heritage gains importance in terms of preventing disappearance of the socio-cultural and spatial assets
of the rural site areas. Sustainable development can be achieved with balance
between utilization and preservation. Therefore, there should be conservation
planning and design policies related to special rural areas and settlements management and their sustainable use.
689
Feray Koca
REFERENCES
Analytic Study of Muðla/Karabaðlar Urban and Natural Site (2002), Dokuz Eylül University,
Ýzmir.
ALTMAN, I., WOHLWILL, J.F. (1983), Behavior and The Natural Environment, Plenum
Press, New York.
ARAN, K. (2000), Beyond Shelter, Anatolian Indigenous Buildings, Tepe Architectural Culture
Center, Turkey.
CENGIZKAN, A. (2002), Modernin Saati, Boyut Yayýn Grubu, Ankara.
CLOKE, J.P. (1983), An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning, Methuen, London & New
York, pp. 315-323.
CRIBB, R. (1991), Nomads in Archeology, Cambridge University Press, UK.
GILBERT, E.W. (1971), Land and Leisure, Associated University Presses, Cranbury, New
Jersey, pp. 267-290.
HARVEY, T. and WORKS, M.A. (2002), Urban Sprawl and Rural Landscapes: Perceptions of
Landscape as Amenity in Portland, Oregon, Department of Geography, Portland State University Portland, Local Environment, (vol. 7), Carfax Publishing.
Karabaðlarý Geliþtirme ve Güzelleþtirme Derneði, (april, 1996), Yayla Bülteni, Esin Ofset &
Tipo Matbaacýlýk, Muðla (no. 2).
KEYDER, Ç., TABAK, F. (1998) Osmanlý’da Toprak Mülkiyeti ve Ticari Tarým, Türkiye
Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfý Yayýnlarý, Ýstanbul.
KOCA, F. (2004) Urban Growth and Conservation Problematic in Muðla, Karabaðlar,
(unpublished Master’s Thesis), Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture,
Department of City and Regional Planning, Ankara, Turkey.
KUBAN, D. (1995) Türk Hayatlý Evi, MTR, Mýsýrlý Matbaacýlýk A.Þ., Ýstanbul, Turkey.
MAESTAS, JEREMY D. et al. (2001) Biodiversity and Land-Use Change in The American
Mountain West, Geographical Review, (vol. 91, issue 3) pp. 509-525.
QUADEER, M.A. (2004), Urbanization by Implosion, Habitat International, (vol. 28, no.1),
pp.1-13.
RADELOFF, V.C., et al. (2003), Rural and Suburban Sprawl in The U.S. Midwest from 1940
to 2000 and Its Relation to Forest Fragmentation, Conservation Biology, (vol. 19, no. 3) pp.
793-805.
SAPMAZ, S. (1996), Doðal Dengeler Bozulurken Karabaðlar, Yayla Bülteni, Karabaðlarý
Geliþtirme ve Güzelleþtirme Derneði, Esin Ofset & Tipo Matbaacýlýk, Muðla, (no. 2) pp. 1719.
SÖZEN, M., ERUZUN, C. (1992) Anadolu’da Ev ve Ýnsan, Creative Yayýncýlýk ve Daðýtým
Ltd.
TEKELI, Ý. (1993), Tarih Içinde Muðla, ODTÜ Mimarlýk Fakültesi Yayýný, Ankara.
WELLER, J. (1967), Modern Agriculture and Rural Planning, Architectural Press, London.
690