EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF REFUNCTIONING ON OTTOMAN

MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

MURADİYE ŞİMŞEK

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN ARCHITECTURE

SEPTEMBER 2023
 Approval of the thesis:

EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF REFUNCTIONING ON OTTOMAN

MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL

submitted by MURADİYE ŞİMŞEK in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Architecture
Department, Middle East Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Halil Kalıpçılar

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences __________________

Prof. Dr. F. Cânâ Bilsel

Head of Department, Architecture __________________

Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz

Supervisor, Architecture, METU __________________

Dr. Fuat Gökçe

Co-Supervisor __________________

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Neriman Şahin Güçhan

Architecture, METU __________________

Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz

Architecture, METU __________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Gülsün Tanyeli

Architecture, ITU __________________

Date: 11.09.2023
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name : Muradiye Şimşek

Signature :

iv
 ABSTRACT

EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF REFUNCTIONING ON OTTOMAN

MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL

Şimşek, Muradiye
M.Sc., Department of Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Architecture
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz
Co. Supervisor: Dr. Fuat Gökçe

September 2023, 428 pages

This thesis evaluates the effects of refunctioning decisions and interventions on the
heritage buildings by examining the 21st century refunctioning practices of the
Ottoman medreses in Istanbul. In this context, refunctioning practices carried out on
10 selected medreses between 2000-2016 were examined and comparatively studied
by considering architectural, functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical,
operational and social inputs. In conclusion, following the assesments made on the
impacts of the interventions, proposals are developed for the process, criteria and
principals that should be considered in refunctioning of the Ottıman medreses which
can be applicable for other heritage buildings as well.

Keywords: Medrese, Ottoman Medreses, Reuse, Refunctioning, Conservation of

Architectural Heritage

v
 ÖZ

İSTANBUL’DAKİ OSMANLI MEDRESELERİNDE YENİDEN

İŞLEVLENDİRME ETKİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Şimşek, Muradiye
Yüksek Lisans, Kültürel Mirası Koruma, Mimarlık
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz
Yardımcı Tez Yöneticisi: Dr. Fuat Gökçe

Eylül 2023, 428 sayfa

Bu tez, İstanbul'daki Osmanlı medreselerinin 21. yüzyıldaki yeniden işlevlendirme

uygulamalarını inceleyerek, yeniden işlevlendirme kararlarının ve müdahalelerinin
kültür mirası yapılar üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirmektedir. Bu bağlamda seçilmiş
10 medresede 2000-2016 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen yeniden işlevlendirme
uygulamaları mimari, işlevsel, hukuki, idari, tarihi, teknik, operasyonel ve sosyal
girdiler dikkate alınarak incelenmiş ve karşılaştırmalı olarak çalışılmıştır. Sonuç
olarak, müdahalelerin etkilerine ilişkin yapılan değerlendirmelerin ardından Osmanlı
medreselerinin yeniden işlevlendirilmesinde dikkat edilmesi gereken süreç, kriterler
ve ilkelere ilişkin diğer tarihi yapılar için de geçerli olabilecek öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Medrese, Osmanlı Medreseleri, Yeniden Kullanım, Yeniden

İşlevlendirme, Mimari Kültürel Mirası Koruma

vi
To My Youth

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I would like to thank to my advisor Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz and
my co-advisor Dr. Fuat Gökçe for their insight throughout this study.
I would like to thank the jury members, dean of the Faculty of Architecture Prof. Dr.
Neriman Şahin Güçhan and Assist. Prof. Dr. Gülsün Tanyeli for their valuable
criticism in final jury exam.
I would also like to thank to Prof. Dr. F. Cânâ Bilsel who Head of Department of
Architecture, for her constructive and unifying attitude towards eliminating
bureaucratic obstacles, recommendations regarding the text and cooperation.
I express my special thanks to the executives and officials of Istanbul Regional
Conservation boards, officials of Istanbul I Regional Directorate of Foundations, all
the officials of Project designer and construction companies who held the restoration
process of the case medreses for their help, sharing knowledge and allowing me access
to archival documents.
I am grateful to my friends specially to my family friend Bülent Odabaşı for his instant
logistic support when I need and to Nilgün Çevrimli for her valuable advices to solve
the unpredictable problems. I feel very lucky to have them in my life. Moreover,
I would like to thank to my dear family, particularly to my husband Cihan Şimşek, my
children Zeynep Berra, Şebnem and Serdar for their limitless patience, tolerance and
logistic and moral support for years during the thesis process. None of this could have
been possible without their endless support, encouragement and love.
Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to all the unsung heroes who helped
this work be completed in the most beautiful way.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. v

ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ ix

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xv

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xvi

LIST OF GRAPHICS ........................................................................................... xxxiii

ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. xxxiv

CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Definition of the Problem ................................................................................. 1

1.2. Aim and Scope of the Research ....................................................................... 3

1.3. Reuse of Historical Buildings: A Conservation Attitude ................................. 3

1.3.1. A Retrospective Look at Reuse of Historical Buildings ........................ 5

1.3.2. A Review of Reuse Examples from Different Countries ....................... 8

1.3.3. Legislative Framework of Reuse of Historical Buildings in Turkey: .. 11

1.3.4. An Assesment ....................................................................................... 16

1.4. Methodology .................................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER II .............................................................................................................. 27

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL: OVERVIEW OF

FUNCIONAL, SPATIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ......................... 27

2.1. Organizational, Administrative and Legal Aspects ........................................ 30

2.2. Architectural Features .................................................................................... 35

2.3. Typology ........................................................................................................ 38

ix
 2.4. Functional Features ........................................................................................ 47

2.5. Contextual Features ........................................................................................ 52

2.6. Review of Existing Medreses ......................................................................... 62

2.7. An Assessment ............................................................................................... 73

CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................. 97

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDRESES FROM ORIGINAL USE TO REUSE:

SELECTED CASES FROM ISTANBUL ................................................................. 97

3.1. Beyazıt Medrese (1506-1507) ........................................................................ 99

3.1.1. The Context .......................................................................................... 99

3.1.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 102

3.1.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 106

3.2. Atik Ali Paşa Medrese (1508-1509) ............................................................. 115

3.2.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 115

3.2.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 118

3.2.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 121

3.3. Haseki Medrese (1539) ................................................................................. 131

3.3.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 131

3.3.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 138

3.3.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 144

3.4. Şehzade Mehmet Medrese (1547) ................................................................ 147

3.4.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 147

3.4.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 154

3.4.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 161

3.5. Rüstem Paşa Medrese (1550) ....................................................................... 167

3.5.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 167

3.5.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 171

3.5.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 181

3.6. Rabi Medrese (1558) .................................................................................... 189

x
 3.6.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 189

3.6.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 194

3.6.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 203

3.7. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese (1580) ..................................................................... 213

3.7.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 213

3.7.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 221

3.7.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 227

3.8. Siyavuş Paşa Medrese (1590)....................................................................... 233

3.8.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 233

3.8.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 236

3.8.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 240

3.9. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese (1592-1593) ....................................................... 251

3.9.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 251

3.9.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ................................. 257

3.9.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ..................... 263

3.10. Sultan Ahmet Medrese (1619-1620) .......................................................... 268

3.10.1. The Context ...................................................................................... 268

3.10.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features ............................... 277

3.10.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works ................... 282

CHAPTER IV .......................................................................................................... 303

EVALUATING the IMPACTS of REUSE of OTTOMAN MEDRESES &

PROPOSALS FOR REUSE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE BUILDINGS ............. 303

4.1. Evaluating the Adaptive Reuse of Selected Medreses ................................. 303

4.1.1. The Context ........................................................................................ 305

4.1.2. Architectural Features and Technical Aspects ................................... 310

4.1.3. The Use and Comfort ......................................................................... 332

4.2. Overall Evaluation ........................................................................................ 340

4.2.1. The Contextual Aspects...................................................................... 340

xi
 4.2.2. The Functional Aspects in Relation with Architectural and Spatial
Properties ............................................................................................ 341

4.2.3. The Structural and Technical Aspects ................................................ 346

4.2.4. The Environmental Aspects Including Comfort and Use................... 349

4.2.5. Managing the Reuse Process .............................................................. 352

4.2.6. Post Refunctioning Process: Monitoring and Management ............... 357

4.3. Proposals....................................................................................................... 365

CHAPTER V ............................................................................................................ 367

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 367

5.1. Results of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 368

5.2. Further Reseach Topics ................................................................................ 371

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 373

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 383

APPENDICE A. (TO CHAPTER I). ANALISIS OF THE PROCESSES AND

GUIDELINES DEVELOPED BY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES FOR REUSE
OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS .................................................................. 384

A.1. Analisis of the Process Developed by Secretary of Interiors for Reuse of

a Historical Building in United States of America ............................. 385

A.2. Guidelines Developed by Secretary of Interiors Regarding Reuse of a

Historical Building in United States of America ................................ 386

A.3. Analisis of the Process Developed by a Federal, Provincial and Territorial

Collaboration for Reuse of a Historical Building in Canada .............. 387

A.4. Guidelines Regarding Reuse Criteria for Historic Buildings Expressed in

“Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada” ............................................................................................... 388

A.5. Analisis of the Process Developed by English Heritage for Change of Use
of A Listed Building ........................................................................... 389

A.6. Bernard Melchior Feilden’s Approach for Reuse Survey of Historic

Buildings ............................................................................................. 390

A.7. William Shopsin’s Approach for Reuse Survey of Historic Buildings 391

B. (TO CHAPTER III). SITE SURVEY CHARTS ON ANALISIS OF HISTORIC

FEATURES AND THE LAST REUSE INTERVENTIONS OF THE CASE
MEDRESES ................................................................................................. 393

xii
B.1. Chart 1.1. Historic Features of Beyazıt Medrese and Its Built Environment
............................................................................................................ 395

B.2. Chart 1.2. 2013-2016 Reuse Interventions of Beyazıt Medrese. .......... 396

B.3. Chart 2.1. Historic Features of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 397

B.4. Chart 2.2. 2014-2016 Reuse Interventions of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese.. 398

B.5. Chart 3.1. Historic Features of Haseki Medrese and Its Built Environment.
............................................................................................................ 399

B.6. Chart 3.2. 2011-2012 Reuse Interventions of Haseki Medrese. ........... 400

B.7. Chart 4.1. Historic Features of Şehzade Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 401

B.8. Chart 4.2. 2013-2016 Reuse Interventions of Şehzade Medrese. ......... 402

B.9. Chart 5.1. Historic Features of Rüstem Paşa Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 403

B.10. Chart 5.2. 2009-2012 Reuse Interventions of Rüstem Paşa Medrese. 404

B.11. Chart 6.1. Historic Features of Rabi Medrese and Its Built Environment.
............................................................................................................ 405

B.12. Chart 6.2. 2005-2010 Reuse Interventions of Rabi Medrese. ............ 406

B.13. Chart 7.1. Historic Features of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 407

B.14. Chart 7.1.1. Reuse Interventions of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese Between
1918-1990 ........................................................................................... 408

B.15. Chart 7.2. 2012-2016 Reuse Interventions Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese. .. 409

B.16. Chart 8.1. Historic Features of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 411

B.17. Chart 8.2. 2012-2015 Reuse Interventions of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese. 412

B.18. Chart 9.1. Historic Features of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 413

B.19. Chart 9.2. 2012-2014 Reuse Interventions of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese.
............................................................................................................ 414

B.20. Chart 10.1. Historic Features of Sultan Ahmet Medrese and Its Built
Environment........................................................................................ 415

xiii
 B.21. Chart 10.2. 2012-2014 Reuse Interventions of Sultan Ahmet Medrese.
............................................................................................................. 416

APPENDICE C. (TO CHAPTER IV). OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE

IMPACT OF REUSE DECISIONS ON THE SELECTED MEDRESES ON
ASPECTS OF DESIGN DECISIONS, SPATIAL-STRUCTURAL AND
SYSTEM ALTERATIONS AND CONTEMPORARY SUSTAINABILITY
APPROACHES ............................................................................................ 417

C.1. Table 4.1. Assessment of the impact of reuse decisions of Beyazıt Medrese
on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations
and contemporary sustainability approaches ...................................... 419

C.2. Table 4.2. Analisis of reuse decisions of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese on aspects
of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 420

C.3. Table 4.3. Analisis of reuse decisions of Haseki Medrese on aspects of

design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 421

C.4. Table 4.4. Analisis of reuse decisions of Şehzade Medrese on aspects of

design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 422

C.5. Table 4.5. Analisis of reuse decisions of Rüstem Paşa Medrese on aspects
of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 423

C.6. Table 4.6. Analisis of reuse decisions of Rabi Medrese on aspects of

design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 424

C.7. Table 4.7. Analisis of reuse decisions of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese on aspects
of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 425

C.8. Table 4.8. Analisis of reuse decisions of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese on aspects
of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 426

C.9. Table 4.9. Analisis of reuse decisions of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese on
aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 427

C.10. Table 4.10. Analisis of reuse decisions of Sultan Ahmet Medrese on

aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches ............................................. 428

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 2.2. Sizes of Existing Medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 ....................................... 63
Table 2.3. Distribution of Existing Medreses Through Centuries ............................. 64
Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 ................ 83
Table 2.4. Functions of Existing Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul in 2015 .................. 95
Table 2.5. Distributions of Users’ Profile on Types of Functions in Existing Ottoman
Medreses in Istanbul in 2015 ..................................................................................... 96
Table 4.1. Overall Evaluation of Medreses .............................................................. 359
Table 4.2. Diversity of Uses of The Spaces in Studied Medreses. .......................... 360
Table 4.3. Overall analisis of appropriateness of reuse of the case medreses from
aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary
sustainability approaches ......................................................................................... 361
Table 4.4. A Proposed Process for Reuse of Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul .......... 363

xv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. First chart being prepared for understanding diversity of different
functions, their use periods and spatial reuse alterations of all existing Medreses in
Istanbul. (this chart was cancelled later) .................................................................... 19
Figure 1.2. Second sheet for comparison of selected reused medreses in terms of
physical potentials, environmental features and effects of reuse alterations. (this chart
was cancelled latter) ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 1.3. Methodological Diagram ......................................................................... 22
Figure 1.4. Analytic list including all existing/demolished medreses of Istanbul that
have been researched .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 1.5. Example of CHART X.1. (Chart 1.1. for Beyazıt Medrese) ................... 24
Figure 1.6. Example of CHART X.2. (Chart 1.2. for Beyazıt Medrese) ................... 24
Figure 2.1. Distribution of Ottoman medreses within Ottoman Territory depending on
centuries (A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999) ........................................... 29
Figure 2.2. Locations of medreses in Istanbul in the second half of 19th century (A
Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999) ................................................................ 29
Figure 2.3. Four World Heritage Sites in Historic Peninsula of Istanbul (KTB) ....... 30
Figure 2.4. Anatolian Medreses showing combinations of medrese, masjid and tomb
(İpekoğlu 2015). ......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 2.5. Hacı Kılıç Mosque and Medrese in Kayseri, 1249-1250 (Sözen 1984) .. 40
Figure 2.6. Early Period courtyarded Ottoman Medreses .......................................... 41
Figure 2.7. 14th and 15th centuries Ottoman medrese typology (Ildız 2006) ........... 42
Figure 2.8. Semaniye (or Sahn-ı Seman) Medreses in Fatih Complex (Müller-Wiener
1977)........................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.9. Sokullu Mosque and Medrese in Kadırga built by Mimar Sinan in 1571/72
(Ali Saim Ülgen) ........................................................................................................ 44
Figure 2.10. Sokullu Medrese in Eyup, built by Mimar Sinan in 1569 (Öklü 2005). 44
Figure 2.11. Typology of Ottoman Medreses developed in 16th century (Ahunbay
1994)........................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 2.12. An illustration showing the first lecture in Gazanfer Ağa Medrese
(Kütükoğlu 2000). ...................................................................................................... 49
Figure 2.13. A miniature from "Nadiri Divanı" showing the first lecture in Gazanfer
Ağa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) ................................................................................. 51
Figure 2.14. Districts of Historic Peninsula of Istanbul- before incorporation of the
quarters Fatih and Eminönü (Conservation Plan Report, 2013) ................................ 53

xvi
Figure 2.15. Byzantine monuments, squares and main axess juxtaposed with 20th
century axess (Freely and Çakmak 2004) .................................................................. 54
Figure 2.16. Map of Bilad-ı Selase showing the name of districts and urban fabric of
Istanbul in 18th century (Kubilay, 2010) ................................................................... 55
Figure 2.17. Urban Rehabilitation areas (dark parts) after urban fires showing the
situation in 1875-1876 -by Ayverdi (Özcan 2006) .................................................... 56
Figure 2.18. New axes planned to be open within historic fabric of Istanbul in Urban
Plan of Henry Prost (Arkitera) ................................................................................... 58
Figure 2.19. Railways and underground lines on Historic Peninsula. (Süperaktif) ... 59
Figure 2.20. Süleymaniye from Galata Tower in 19th century. (Fatih Conservation
Plan Report 2003) ...................................................................................................... 60
Figure 2.21. Süleymaniye from Galata Tower in 2016. (Private Archive of Zübeyde
Cihan Özsayıner) ........................................................................................................ 60
Figure 2.22. Hospital complexes in Fatih region (Conservation Plan Report 2003) . 61
Figure 2.23. Great administrative complex buildings in Fatih region (Conservation
Plan Report 2003) ...................................................................................................... 61
Figure 2.24. Percantages of sizes of existing medreses in Istanbul ........................... 63
Figure 2.25. Percantages of existing medreses considering their programs .............. 63
Figure 2.26. Distribution of numbers of existing medreses on both centuries and their
programs ..................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 2.27. Plan of Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi Medrese (Uluçam 1995)........... 67
Figure 2.28. Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi Medrese, as Millet Library in 2017 ...... 67
Figure 2.29. Revak section of Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese. 2011 ....................... 68
Figure 2.30. Entrance of Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese from courtyard. 2011 ...... 68
Figure 2.31. Courtyard of Seyit Hasan Paşa Medrese. 2011 ..................................... 69
Figure 2.32. Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese before refunctioning. 2005 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 2.33. Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese after refunctioning. 2015 ......................... 72
Figure 2.34. Structural craks on Tabhane Medrese in Fatih Complex. 2016............. 73
Figure 2.35. Ground and upper floor divisions and staircase of a room in Haci Beşir
Ağa Medrese, 2011 .................................................................................................... 73
Figure 2.36. Existing Medreses in Historic Peninsula of Istanbul, 2015 – Juxtaposed
on Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi Maps (1875-1882) ............................................................ 79
Figure 2.37. Existing Medreses in Istanbul, 2015 on Google Map. .......................... 80
Figure 2.38. Existing Medreses in Conservation Plan ............................................... 81
Figure 2.39. Existing and Refunctioned Medreses in 2015 Juxtaposed on Cultural
Functions in Conservation Plan ................................................................................. 82

xvii
Figure 2.40. Distribution of Types of Functions of Existing Ottoman Medreses in
Istanbul in 2015 .......................................................................................................... 95
Figure 2.41. Distribution of "Users' Profiles" of Existing Medreses in Istanbul in 2015
.................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 2.42. Distribution of "Users' Profiles" on "Types of Function" of Existing
Medreses in Istanbul in 2015 ..................................................................................... 96
Figure 3.1. Locations of case medreses within Conservation and Rehabilitation Sites
of Istanul (Alan Başkanlığı) ....................................................................................... 98
Figure 3.2. (Left). Beyazıt Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th century (Kubilay
2010)......................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 3.3. (Right). Beyazıt Medrese in Mühendishane Map, 1848 ........................ 100
Figure 3.4. Beyazıt Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913 ......... 100
Figure 3.5. Beyazıt Medrese superposed with its lot in aerial photo 2013 (IMM) .. 101
Figure 3.6. Beyazıt Medrese around 1940's (Archive of Istanbul Ist.RDF)............. 102
Figure 3.7. Original plan of Beyazıt Medrese, Restitution by Halil Onur, 2007 (Archive
of Istanbul Ist. RDF)................................................................................................. 103
Figure 3.8. Original entrance facade of Beyazıt Medrese, Restitution by Halil Onur,
2007 (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF) ........................................................................ 103
Figure 3.9. B-B Section, Restitution by Halil Onur, 2007 (Archive of Istanbul Ist.
RDF) ......................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 3.10. New uses of spaces in approved restoration plan and original architectural
elements in the courtyard, by Halil Onur (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)................ 104
Figure 3.11. Courtyard; from classroom (SECTION VI) 2015 ............................... 105
Figure 3.12. Typical room window order of the Beyazıt Medrese (detail from Figure
3.8.)........................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 3.13. (Left). Classroom; entrance door and inside, 2015 .............................. 106
Figure 3.14. (Right). Eivan (designed as a cafeteria), 2015 ..................................... 106
Figure 3.15. Plan of Beyazıt Medrese, 1970 (archive of IRDF) .............................. 108
Figure 3.16. Plan showing the refunctioning of the spaces and interventions of Beyazıt
Medrese; underground toilets in the courtyard, at the right bottom according to the
applied restoration interior design plan by Paralel 41 Architecture in 2010 (archive of
Yılmaz Yapı, the contractor) .................................................................................... 110
Figure 3.17. Plan and sections according to the Interior Design Project by Paralel 41
Architecture (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF) ............................................................ 110
Figure 3.18. Revak interventions in restoration project by Paralel 41 Architecture
(Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF) ................................................................................. 111
Figure 3.19. Section B-B of the Restoration Project by Halil Onur, (Archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 111

xviii
Figure 3.20. Beyazıt Medrese and original garden walls before demolishing in 1950's
(archive of Yılmaz Yapı) ......................................................................................... 112
Figure 3.21. Chadastral situation of Beyazıt Medrese and its neighbourhood until
1950s (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF). ...................................................................... 113
Figure 3.22. Reconstruction Project for the garden walls of Beyazıt Medrese by Halil
Onur (archive of Yılmaz Yapı) ................................................................................ 113
Figure 3.23. Site Plan showing 16th century situation (Cerasi 2004) ...................... 115
Figure 3.24. Location of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese in Behçet Maps, 1846-1847 (Atatürk
Library) .................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 3.25. Çemberlitaş, Column Constantin, and Atik Ali Paşa İmaret and Mosque
behind it in Barlett’s Gravure, in 1800s (Anonymous) ............................................ 116
Figure 3.26. Original plan of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, between 16th-19 th century. (1st
period restitution plan by ArtLite Architecture, 2012) ............................................ 119
Figure 3.27. (left) Main enrtance and courtyard, 2011 (before restoration) ............ 119
Figure 3.28. (middle), Classroom entrance and revaks, 2015 .................................. 119
Figure 3.29. (right), Medrese from East-West, 2015 2015 ...................................... 119
Figure 3.30. Ground floor rooms window order, 2015 ............................................ 120
Figure 3.31. Original ground floor rooms' niches, and original fireplace, 2015 ...... 120
Figure 3.32. Original classroom – revaks relation (from Restitution Project drawn by
ArtLite Architecture in 2012)................................................................................... 121
Figure 3.33. Measured Drawing of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, 1975 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 122
Figure 3.34. Atik Ali Paşa Medrese in 1975 (archive of DGF) ............................... 122
Figure 3.35. Upper floor rooms window order, 2015. ............................................. 123
Figure 3.36. Upper rooms fireplace, 2015. .............................................................. 123
Figure 3.37. Upper Floor Plan, Ground Floor Plan and Section of applied restoration
project, 2012 (ArtLite Architecture) ........................................................................ 124
Figure 3.38. Window alteration in the room next to the classroom after 1975
interventions in unknown date, 2015 ....................................................................... 125
Figure 3.39. Courtyard and revaks in 2011 .............................................................. 125
Figure 3.40. Courtyard and revaks in 2011 .............................................................. 126
Figure 3.41. Ottoman alterations and unqualified additional spaces applied on
measured drawing of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese by ArtLite Architecture, 2013. ......... 126
Figure 3.42. The last repair installations, applied on restoration project of Atik Ali Paşa
Medrese prepared by ArtLite Architecture, 2013. ................................................... 128
Figure 3.43. Fire supression (left) and electrical (right) system projects, 2013 (Evitan
Engineering) ............................................................................................................. 129
Figure 3.44. Courtyard from upper revaks in 2015 .................................................. 129

xix
Figure 3.45. Medrese from East-West in 2015 ........................................................ 129
Figure 3.46. Cafeteria as new addition in the backyard in 2015 .............................. 130
Figure 3.47. Map of Istanbul showing the main axis and important points in Byzantine
Period (Muslubaş 2007) ........................................................................................... 132
Figure 3.48. (left) Haseki Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th century (Kubilay
2010)......................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 3.49. (right) Haseki Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848 ........ 132
Figure 3.50. (left) Haseki Medrese and its complex in French Maps, 1900's .......... 133
Figure 3.51. (right) Haseki Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913
.................................................................................................................................. 133
Figure 3.52. (left) Aerial photo of the complex, 1960's (archive of DGF) .............. 133
Figure 3.53. (right) Haseki Medrese, 1960's (archive of DGF) ............................... 133
Figure 3.54. (left) Haseki Mosque behind the Bayram Paşa Lodge on Haseki Street,
1960's (archive of DGF) ........................................................................................... 133
Figure 3.55. (middle) The only shop remaining from the old Avrat Pazarı (Womens'
Bazaar) next to the medrese, 1960's (archive of DGF) ............................................ 133
Figure 3.56. (right) Imaret, 1964 (archive of DGF) ................................................. 133
Figure 3.57. Haseki Medrese with its lot in aerial photo 2013 (IMM) .................... 134
Figure 3.58. Site Plan (Archive of DGF) ................................................................. 135
Figure 3.59. Applied restoration plan and staff rooms designed underground of the
backyard, 2012 (archive of DGF) ............................................................................ 136
Figure 3.60. Section C-C showing the staffroom underground of the backyard and the
additional garden wall, 2012 (archive of DGF) ....................................................... 136
Figure 3.61. Approved restoration plan, 2012 (archive of DGF) ............................. 137
Figure 3.62. Detail A from Figure 3.59, showing interior design of a corner room.
(archive of DGF) ...................................................................................................... 137
Figure 3.63. Original Plan of Medrese (Ülgen 1962) .............................................. 139
Figure 3.64. Entrance facade on Haseki Street, 1960's (archive of DGF) ............... 140
Figure 3.65. Revaks; secondary entrance and room entrances, 2015 ...................... 141
Figure 3.66. Stone made well ring, 2015 ................................................................. 141
Figure 3.67. Typical room; its architectural elements and installations, 2015......... 142
Figure 3.68. Typical room; its architectural elements and installations, 2015......... 142
Figure 3.69. South-west room's windows from west (from outside) and inside, 2015
.................................................................................................................................. 143
Figure 3.70. Section D-D (archive of DGF)............................................................. 143
Figure 3.71. Courtyard, revaks and the classroom, 2015 ......................................... 144
Figure 3.72. Classroom (library); architectural elements and installations. 2015.... 144

xx
Figure 3.73. Plan and section drawings for wc space and door additions in 1960's
(archive of DGF) ...................................................................................................... 145
Figure 3.74. North facade before and after 1960’s restoration (archive of DGF) ... 145
Figure 3.75. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848 ................. 147
Figure 3.76. Axonometric drawing of the complex from restitution report by Anıt
Architecture (archive of DGF) ................................................................................. 148
Figure 3.77. The Şehzade Mosque and the tomb from Direklerarası Street in an
engraving, 19th c. (anonymus) ................................................................................. 149
Figure 3.78. Direklerarası Street and behind the minarets of Şehzade Mosque, at the
beginning of 20th century (anonymus) .................................................................... 150
Figure 3.79. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913 ...... 150
Figure 3.80. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in Pervititch Maps, 1934 ............. 150
Figure 3.81. The primary school, that is sıbyan mektebi, and the imaret (Kuban 1994)
.................................................................................................................................. 151
Figure 3.82. Süleymaniye Mosque and Surround World Heritage Site (Istanbul
Historic Peninsula Site Management Plan 2011) ..................................................... 153
Figure 3.83. Şehzade Medrese before 1960 (from Restoration Project photo albüm by
Anıt Architecture) .................................................................................................... 153
Figure 3.84. Courtyard through South and the ablution fountain, 2015 .................. 155
Figure 3.85. Well, 2015............................................................................................ 155
Figure 3.86. Courtyard through North side, 2015 .................................................... 156
Figure 3.87. Restitution Plan of Shehzade Medrese. (Anıt Architecture 2012) ...... 156
Figure 3.88. Original room window order, 2015 ..................................................... 157
Figure 3.89. Fireplace in rooms, 2015 ..................................................................... 157
Figure 3.90. Eivan in Şehzade Medrese, 2015 ......................................................... 158
Figure 3.91. Original toilets, 2015 ........................................................................... 159
Figure 3.92. Şehzade Medrese and the Mosque from North-West, 1959 ( archive of
DGF) ........................................................................................................................ 159
Figure 3.93. Site Plan from restoration project 2012 (archive of Anıt Architecture)
.................................................................................................................................. 159
Figure 3.94. East revaks and main entrance, 2015 ................................................... 160
Figure 3.95. Classroom entrance, 2015 .................................................................... 160
Figure 3.96. Drawing showing the metal framework addition closing the revaks of
Şehzade Medrese in 1960 (archive of DGF) ............................................................ 162
Figure 3.97. Metal framework addition and heating system intallation in 1960 closure
of revaks of Şehzade Medrese (archive of DGF) ..................................................... 162
Figure 3.98. Revaks of Şehzade Medrese in 2009 (archive of DGF) ...................... 163
Figure 3.99. Courtyard of Şehzade Medrese in 2009 (archive of DGF) .................. 163

xxi
Figure 3.100. Interventions nailed to original masonry of Şehzade Medrese in 1990’s
(archive of DGF) ...................................................................................................... 163
Figure 3.101. Floor addition in two rooms in the south corner of Şehzade Medrese in
1990’s (archive of DGF) .......................................................................................... 164
Figure 3.102. Plan of restoration Project (adapted from the approved restoration
Project prepared by Anıt Architecture), 2012 .......................................................... 165
Figure 3.103. 3.90 Level Partial Plan of service backyard, restoration project, 2012
(Anıt Architecture) ................................................................................................... 165
Figure 3.104. A-A Section of restoration project, 2012 (archive of Anıt Architecture)
.................................................................................................................................. 166
Figure 3.105. Rüstem Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th c. (Kubilay 2010)
.................................................................................................................................. 168
Figure 3.106. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848 ........ 168
Figure 3.107. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913
.................................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 3.108. (left) Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in Pervititch Maps, 1934
.................................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 3.109. (right) Site Plan restitution, referring to 16th century situation, by UB
Construction Limited Company, 2009 (Archive of DGF) ....................................... 169
Figure 3.110. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its lot in aerial photo, 2013 (IMM) ........ 169
Figure 3.111. (left) Entrance facade (Wiener 1978) ................................................ 172
Figure 3.112. (right) Entrance Facade from Rüstem Paşa Street, 2015 ................... 172
Figure 3.113. Courtyard pavement, 2015 ................................................................. 172
Figure 3.114. Revak pavement, 2015 ....................................................................... 173
Figure 3.115. (left) Entrance eivan........................................................................... 173
Figure 3.116. Eivan in the North corner, 2015......................................................... 173
Figure 3.117. (left) Pavement of the room located at the east side of the south eivan,
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 3.118. (right) Triangular space pavement, 2015 ........................................... 174
Figure 3.119. Approved restitution plan, referring to 16th century situation, by UB
Construction Limited Company 2009 (Archive of DGF) ........................................ 174
Figure 3.120. Rüstem Paşa Medrese Courtyard in 1937 (Eski İstanbul Resimleri). 175
Figure 3.121. Ablution fountain, courtyard and revaks of Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015
.................................................................................................................................. 175
Figure 3.122. Portal of Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015 ............................................... 176
Figure 3.123. South-East Facade, restoration project by UB Construction Limited
Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF) ....................................................................... 177
Figure 3.124. Classroom entrance from revaks, 2015.............................................. 177

xxii
Figure 3.125. Classroom from north east, 2015 ....................................................... 178
Figure 3.126. Classroom interior, 2015 ................................................................... 178
Figure 3.127. (left). Classroom, bookcase, 2015 ..................................................... 179
Figure 3.128. (right). Classroom, mihrab niche, 2015 ............................................. 179
Figure 3.129. The triangular space in Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015 ........................ 180
Figure 3.130. An original toilet cabin in Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015 .................... 180
Figure 3.131. Additional service space as heating center in service backyard in 1979
.................................................................................................................................. 182
Figure 3.132. Plan, approved restoration project by UB Construction Limited
Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)....................................................................... 183
Figure 3.133. Plan, applied restoration project by UB Construction Limited
Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)....................................................................... 184
Figure 3.134. Interventions in A-A Partial Section of restoration project by UB
Construction Limited Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF) ................................... 185
Figure 3.135. Interventions on South-East Facade, restoration project by UB
Construction Limited Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF) ................................... 185
Figure 3.136. The room next to the entrance eivan refurnished as projection room,
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 185
Figure 3.137. Service banch in revaks, in front of the kitchen, 2015 ...................... 186
Figure 3.138. left. Roofing and marble pavement in women’s toilets, 2015 ........... 186
Figure 3.139. Electric and sanitary istallations in women's toilets, 2015 ................ 186
Figure 3.140. View of courtyard from entrance eivan, 2015 ................................... 186
Figure 3.141. (left) Chandelier and refurnishing in welcoming room, 2015 ........... 187
Figure 3.142. (middle) Window alteration in the east room, gallery, 2015 ............. 187
Figure 3.143. (right) Fireplace alteration in the west room, gallery, 2015 .............. 187
Figure 3.144. (left) Refurnishing and fireplace use in meeting room, 2015 ............ 187
Figure 3.145. (middle) Niche in the meeting room, 2015 ........................................ 187
Figure 3.146. (right) Reuse of meeting room, heater and lighting, 2015 ................. 187
Figure 3.147. (left) Reuse of a room as restaurant, reuse of its fireplace and a niche,
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 187
Figure 3.148. (right) Fireplace and niches in the room used as a library, 2015 ....... 187
Figure 3.149. Fireplace in the room used for security and control, 2015 ................ 188
Figure 3.150. Fireplace in the room used as seminar hall for women, 2015 ........... 188
Figure 3.151 Car park in front of the entrance façade, 2015 ................................... 188
Figure 3.152. Rabi Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848 ..................... 190
Figure 3.153. Site Plan Restitution of Süleymaniye Complex by Architect Ali Saim
Ülgen, 1960's ............................................................................................................ 190

xxiii
Figure 3.154. Süleymaniye Complex and Rabi Medrese from Galata Tower in 19th
century. (Fatih Conservation Plan Report 2003) ...................................................... 191
Figure 3.155. (left) Location of Rabi Medrese in 1909-1913 (German Blues) ....... 192
Figure 3.156. (right) Location of Rabi Medrese in 1918 (Necip Bey Maps) ........... 192
Figure 3.157. Rabi and Salis Medreses with their chadastral lot in aerial photo, 2013
(IMM) ....................................................................................................................... 192
Figure 3.158. Historical shops on street facade and the portal of Rabi Medrese in 1973
(archive of Rehabilitation Council 1 of Istanbul) ..................................................... 194
Figure 3.159. Approved restitution plan, referring to the16th century situation, by
Architect Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (Archive of KVKBK 2 ) ............................................. 196
Figure 3.160. A-A Section from approved restitution project, referring to 16th century
situation, by Architect Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (Archive of KVKBK 2) ......................... 196
Figure 3.161. The main entrance, 2016 .................................................................... 197
Figure 3.162. Entrance revaks, 2016 ........................................................................ 198
Figure 3.163. Seminar hall (classroom,) of Rabi Medrese 2016 .............................. 199
Figure 3.164. North East facade of Rabi Medrese from the courtyard of the Mulazımlar
Rooms, 2016............................................................................................................. 199
Figure 3.165. Outer façade and window order of the rooms in Rabi and Salis medreses,
2016 .......................................................................................................................... 200
Figure 3.166. Room detail, plan (left) and section (right) from restoration detail
projects by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of KVKBK 1) ............................................ 200
Figure 3.167. Interior of a typical room ................................................................... 201
Figure 3.168. (left) The first part of the north corner room, 2016 ........................... 201
Figure 3.169. (right) The first part of the north corner room, 2016 ......................... 201
Figure 3.170.The second part of the north corner room (upper Mülazımlar room), 2016
.................................................................................................................................. 201
Figure 3.171. Classroom from courtyard, 1960 (Archive of DGF) ......................... 202
Figure 3.172. Original wc hall of Rabi Medrese, 2016 ............................................ 203
Figure 3.173. New uses of the spaces of Rabi Medrese in 2016, alterations and
installations, applied on plan of restoration project by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of
KVKBK 1) ............................................................................................................... 206
Figure 3.174. A-A Section from restoration project of Rabi Medrese by Ayşe Orbay,
2003 (archive of KVKBK 1) .................................................................................... 207
Figure 3.175. Electric lines installation in rooms and revaks; plan and section from
restoration detail projects by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of KVKBK 1) ................ 207
Figure 3.176. Installations in North garden, rooms and revaks, 2009 (archive ofDGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 207
Figure 3.177. Window framework detail applied in rooms and classroom (left) and in
toilets (right), 2016 ................................................................................................... 208

xxiv
Figure 3.178. A sink detail from wc, 2016 .............................................................. 208
Figure 3.179. Electrical heating sheet in and radiator in administration office, 2016
.................................................................................................................................. 209
Figure 3.180. Entrance revak of Rabi Medrese, 2016.............................................. 209
Figure 3.181. North East revaks of Rabi Medrese, 2016 ......................................... 210
Figure 3.182. Chairman's Office refurnishing, 2016 ............................................... 210
Figure 3.183. Room design as office use for researchers, 2016 .............................. 211
Figure 3.184. Improper installations after restoration on the façade of the classroom,
2016 .......................................................................................................................... 212
Figure 3.185. (left) Location of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th
century (Kubilay 2010) ............................................................................................ 214
Figure 3.186. (right) Location of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Kauffer Map, 1786
(Kubilay, 2010) ........................................................................................................ 214
Figure 3.187. (left) Site Plan Restitution of the Complex (Kuran 1986) ................. 214
Figure 3.188. (right) Site Plan Restitution of the Complex by Ali Sami Ülgen, 1941
.................................................................................................................................. 214
Figure 3.189. Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque and Tomb in a gravure, 1840 (Eyice 2002) .. 215
Figure 3.190. Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex by Robertson, 1855 ..................................... 215
Figure 3.191. Tophane District in 1870's by Basile Kargapuolo, at right Kılıç Ali Paşa
Mosque ..................................................................................................................... 216
Figure 3.192. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Maps, 1927 ............................. 216
Figure 3.193. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese with its lot in chadastral plan, 2013 (IMM) . 216
Figure 3.194. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese with its lot in aerial photo, 2013 (IMM) ...... 217
Figure 3.195. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015 (https://www.haberler.com) ............... 217
Figure 3.196. Galataport Project site plan (Arkitera-2) ........................................... 217
Figure 3.197. (left). The street at south of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrerse, 2016 ........ 218
Figure 3.198. (right). Small square at south of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrerse, 2016 . 218
Figure 3.199. Entrance facade and entrance door of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015 218
Figure 3.200. (left) Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex, photo by Sophus Williams, 1860's ... 219
Figure 3.201. (right) Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese from minaret, at the beginning of 20th
century from Restoration Report (archive of KVKBK 1)........................................ 219
Figure 3.202. Original situation adapted from Restitution Plan by DK Architecture,
2009 (archive of DGF) ............................................................................................. 221
Figure 3.203. Courtyard of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015....................................... 222
Figure 3.204. Ablution fountain and well in the courtyard, 2015 ............................ 223
Figure 3.205. North east revaks, 2015 ..................................................................... 223
Figure 3.206. East corner room from graveyard, 2015 ............................................ 224

xxv
Figure 3.207. Revak facade order of rooms 2015 .................................................... 224
Figure 3.208. (left). East corner room 2015 ............................................................. 225
Figure 3.209. (right) Niche in rooms 2015 ............................................................... 225
Figure 3.210. Classroom of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2015 ................................... 226
Figure 3.211. Mihrab in the classroom of 2015 ....................................................... 226
Figure 3.212. Unpermitted harmful interventions in revaks (left), in the classroom
(middle) and in a room (right) of Kilic Ali Paşa Medrese during the nursery function.
(archive of DGF) ...................................................................................................... 227
Figure 3.213. Rejected restoration plan proposal (DK Architect) ........................... 229
Figure 3.214. Closure of the revaks proposal for Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, prepared by
DK Architecture in 2005 (DK Architect) ................................................................. 229
Figure 3.215. Courtyard covering system proposal for Kilic Ali Paşa Medrese prepared
by DK Architecture in 2005 (DK Architect) ............................................................ 230
Figure 3.216. Plan, restoration project by DK Architecture, 2009 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 231
Figure 3.217. Interventions in A-A Section, restoration project by DK Architecture,
2009 (archive of DGF) ............................................................................................. 231
Figure 3.218. Interventions in B-B Section, restoration Project by DK Architecture,
2009 (archive of DGF) ............................................................................................. 232
Figure 3.219. (left) Revak lighting, 2015 ................................................................. 232
Figure 3.220. (right) Lighting on the tension rods in revaks 2015........................... 232
Figure 3.221. (left) Location of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, and
urban fabric in18th century (Kubilay 2010) ............................................................. 234
Figure 3.222. (right) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Ayverdi Map and urban fabric in 1848
.................................................................................................................................. 234
Figure 3.223. left) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in German Blues, 1909-1913................. 234
Figure 3.224. (right) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Maps, 1941 .................... 234
Figure 3.225. Restitution Plan by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 237
Figure 3.226. Basement Floor Plans restitution Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive
of DGF) .................................................................................................................... 237
Figure 3.227. North Facade Restitution by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of
DGF)......................................................................................................................... 238
Figure 3.228. South rooms elevation from courtyard in restitution project by
Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of DGF) .................................................... 238
Figure 3.229. G-G Section restitution by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of
DGF)......................................................................................................................... 239
Figure 3.230. East facade, entrance and classroom in 1941 (Town Council Archive)
.................................................................................................................................. 239

xxvi
Figure 3.231. Courtyard and North rooms in 1941 (Town Council Archive), ........ 241
Figure 3.232. Plan of approved restoration project, prepared by Architecture
Foundation, 2010 (Archive of DGF) ........................................................................ 242
Figure 3.233. Model of restoration plan of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese by Architecture
Foundation (archive of DGF) ................................................................................... 242
Figure 3.234. Model of restoration plan of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese by Architecture
Foundation (archive of DGF) ................................................................................... 243
Figure 3.235. (left) General view from South East, 2016. ....................................... 243
Figure 3.236. (right) General view from South, 2016.............................................. 243
Figure 3.237. Main entrance from East, 2016. ......................................................... 244
Figure 3.238. Existing door opening connecting two spaces in southwest corner of
Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in 2016. ................................................................................ 244
Figure 3.239. Plan (Applied situation), restoration project by Architecture Foundation,
2010 (Archive of DGF) ............................................................................................ 245
Figure 3.240. (left) South east corner room, refunctioned as a gallery, 2016. ......... 245
Figure 3.241. (right) Fireplace and niches in rooms, 2016. ..................................... 245
Figure 3.242. Chandelier in rooms and classroom, 2016......................................... 246
Figure 3.243. Classroom, refunctioned as the administration office, 2016. ............ 246
Figure 3.244. A-A Section, restoration project by Architecture Foundation, 2010
(Archive of DGF) ..................................................................................................... 246
Figure 3.245. B-B Section, restoration project by Architecture Foundation, 2010
(Archive of DGF) ..................................................................................................... 247
Figure 3.246. Plan, approved mechanical project by Detay Engineering, 2010 (archive
of DGF) .................................................................................................................... 247
Figure 3.247. Radiator in a room in Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2016 .......................... 248
Figure 3.248. Storage and additional building behind it, 2016 ................................ 248
Figure 3.249. Courtyard from East, 2016. ............................................................... 248
Figure 3.250. Courtyard and revaks from South, 2016. ........................................... 249
Figure 3.251. Northern revaks, using for exhibition, 2016 ...................................... 249
Figure 3.252. Southern revaks, using for recreation, 2016 ...................................... 249
Figure 3.253. Entrance courtyard of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2016 .......................... 250
Figure 3.254. Site plan showing 16th century situation of Koca Sinan Paşa Complex
from restitution project prepared by Anfora Architecture in 2011 (archive of Anfora
Architecture) ............................................................................................................ 252
Figure 3.255. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Map, 1922 ........................... 252
Figure 3.256. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese with its complex in 1848, Ayverdi Map . 253
Figure 3.257. Koca Sinan Paşa Sebil and Tomb in 19th century (German Archaeology
Instıtute) ................................................................................................................... 253

xxvii
Figure 3.258. Koca Sinan Paşa Sebil in 19th century (German Archaeology Instıtute)
.................................................................................................................................. 254
Figure 3.259. Koca Sinan Paşa Complex in 1755, (Eski İstanbul Resimleri).......... 254
Figure 3.260. The classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1990 (archive of IRDF)
.................................................................................................................................. 256
Figure 3.261. Use of the classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1990 (archive of
IRDF) ....................................................................................................................... 256
Figure 3.262. Original layout (produced by using restitution plan) (restitution from
archive of Anfora Architecture, 2011) ..................................................................... 258
Figure 3.263. Courtyard and revaks; ablution fountain, well and stone water tank, 2015
.................................................................................................................................. 259
Figure 3.264. Outer window order of rooms and the outer wall of graveyard, from
Divanyolu Street in 2011.......................................................................................... 260
Figure 3.265. Big niche in the room where was used as masjid, 2015 .................... 260
Figure 3.266. Small niche in rooms, 2015 ............................................................... 261
Figure 3.267. Revaks of the classroom from west and the entrance of the medrese at
the end, 2015 ............................................................................................................ 262
Figure 3.268. Revaks of the classroom from south, 2015 ........................................ 262
Figure 3.269. (left), Classroom north wall and transition elements, 2015 ............... 263
Figure 3.270. (right), Classroom east wall window order, 2015 ............................. 263
Figure 3.271. Classroom enrance from inside, 2015................................................ 263
Figure 3.272. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1964 (archive of IRDF) ....................... 264
Figure 3.273. Plan showing the new uses and interventions of spaces in 2015 (being
applied on the restoration project by Anfora Architecture in 2011) (restoration project
from archive of Anfora Architecture) ...................................................................... 266
Figure 3.274. Reuse interventions applied on A-A section of restoration project by
Anfora Architecture in 2011(restoration project from archive of Anfora Architecture)
.................................................................................................................................. 266
Figure 3.275. (left) Control cap on the installation channel surrounding revaks, 2015
.................................................................................................................................. 267
Figure 3.276. (middle) The room refurnished for calligraphy workshop, 2015 ...... 267
Figure 3.277. (right) External airconditioning unit of the classroom, 2015 ............. 267
Figure 3.278. The room refurnished as translation office for two users, 2015 ........ 267
Figure 3.279. Sultan Ahmet Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848 ...... 269
Figure 3.280. Site Plan showing 17th century situation (Nayir 1975) ..................... 269
Figure 3.281. Atmeydanı in a gravure, the mosque and the tomb on left, bakery and
imaret in the middle, Ibrahim Pasha Palace on right (anonymus) ........................... 270
Figure 3.282. Bakery and imaret from Atmeydanı in a gravure (anonymus) .......... 271

xxviii
Figure 3.283. Mosque, primary school and the medrese, 1920's (Eski İstanbul
Resimleri) ................................................................................................................. 271
Figure 3.284. (left) Primary school and fountain, 1920's (archive of DGF) ............ 271
Figure 3.285. (right) Tomb and Darulkurra and partially medrese from the minaret of
the Blue Mosque 1920's (archive of DGF) .............................................................. 271
Figure 3.286. Sultan Ahmet Medrese With Its Complex (yellow framed buildings) on
Sultanahmet Archaeologic Area with Roman and Byzantine Period Buildings (without
color and written in blue) and Ottoman Buildings (with green hatch); adapted from the
map by Ali Muslubaş (Muslubaş 2007). .................................................................. 272
Figure 3.287. Sultanahmet Area in Matrakçı Nasuh’s Miniature (Matrakçı Nasuh
1533) ........................................................................................................................ 273
Figure 3.288. Mosque from Haqia Sophia and district 1910's (archive of DGF) .... 274
Figure 3.289. Medrese and district surrounding it in 1900's (Eski İstanbul Resimleri)
.................................................................................................................................. 275
Figure 3.290. Sultan Ahmet Medrese (in detail) in Sultanahmet Archaeologic Park in
Prost Plan, 1940 ....................................................................................................... 276
Figure 3.291. Sultan Ahmet Archaeologic Park as World Heritage Site (IHMR 2011)
.................................................................................................................................. 276
Figure 3.292. Sultan Ahmet Medrese in German Blues, 1909-1913 ....................... 278
Figure 3.293. Plan showing the original architectural and functional features of Sultan
Ahmet Medrese applied on Restitution Plan of Sultan Ahmet Medrese. (restitution
Project from archive of Anfora Architecture, 2011) ................................................ 279
Figure 3.294. Carved marble water tank in front of the ablution fountain, 2011 .... 280
Figure 3.295. Carved marble water tank in front of the ablution fountain, 2016 .... 280
Figure 3.296. Drinking water pool in front of the ablution fountain, 2016 ............. 281
Figure 3.297. Sultan Ahmet Medrese in aerial photo around 1933-1935 (archive of
Halil Onur) ............................................................................................................... 283
Figure 3.298. Sultan Ahmet Medrese as archive store, after 1935 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 284
Figure 3.299. Sultan Ahmet Medrese as archive store, after 1935 (archive of DGF)
.................................................................................................................................. 285
Figure 3.300. Courtyard of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2011, before restoration ..... 285
Figure 3.301. The situation of unpermitted past interventions in the room on south west
side of the entrance eivan of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2011, before restoration ... 286
Figure 3.302. Chadastral map showing unpermitted occupations in backyard of Sultan
Ahmet Medrese in 1969. (archive of DGF) ............................................................. 286
Figure 3.303. Reuse interventions applied on plan of restoration Project made in 2011
(restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture) ...................................... 288
Figure 3.304. Reuse interventions for toilets applied on C-C Section of restoration
Project made in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture) ... 288
xxix
Figure 3.305. Reuse interventions applied on A-A Section of restoration Project made
in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture) ......................... 288
Figure 3.306. Reuse interventions applied on North-West Facade of restoration Project
made in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture) ................ 289
Figure 3.307. 1920's Courtyard Roofing of Hamidiye Medrese in Eminönü,
(Restoration Report of Sultan Ahmet Medrese 2011) .............................................. 289
Figure 3.308. 3D model of proposedstainless still roof covering in structural report ,
2012 (Archive of Conservation Council IV of Istanbul).......................................... 290
Figure 3.309. Courtyard roofing and reconstructed fountain roof, 2015 ................. 291
Figure 3.310. Seminar hall (courtyard), 2015 .......................................................... 291
Figure 3.311. Glass seperation of entrance eivan on revaks side, 2015 ................... 292
Figure 3.312. Radiator covered with a wooden furniture in revaks, 2015 ............... 292
Figure 3.313. Room used for traditional illumination art workshops, 2015 ............ 293
Figure 3.314. Meeting room (classroom), 2015 ....................................................... 293
Figure 3.315. Electric installations on revak walls, 2015 ........................................ 294
Figure 3.316. Main entrance and a steel made construction fixed to the facade for a
shelter, 2015 ............................................................................................................. 295
Figure 3.317. Garden (backyard) from East and name plate nailed to the cut stone
facade, 2015 ............................................................................................................. 295
Figure 3.318. Security cabin in front of the medrese next to the tomb wall, 2016 .. 296
Figure 3.319. Generator at the back garden, 2015 ................................................... 296
Figure 3.320. Room used as office, 2015 ................................................................. 297
Figure 3.321. Room used as lecture room, 2015 ...................................................... 298
Figure 3.322. Room used as kitchen, 2015 .............................................................. 298
Figure 3.323. Room used for traditional calligraphy art workshop, 2015 ............... 299
Figure 3.324. Room used for security system control, 2015.................................... 299
Figure 3.325. Reorganisation of toilets, 2015 .......................................................... 299
Figure 3.326. Library, 2016 ..................................................................................... 300
Figure 3.327. Classroom decoration of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2015 (left) and 2016
(right) ........................................................................................................................ 300
Figure 3.328. Reorganisation of south west revaks in 2015 (left) and 2016 (right) 300
Figure 3.329. One of rooms of Sultan Ahmet Medrese refunctioned as kitchen, the
situation in 2015 (left) and in 2016 (right) ............................................................... 301
Figure 4.1. Beyazıt Square, 2023 (IMM 2023) ........................................................ 305
Figure 4.2. The context of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese from Yeniçeriler Street (old
Divanyolu), 2011 ...................................................................................................... 306
Figure 4.3. The context of Rabi Medrese in 2023 (Hürriyet news) ......................... 308

xxx
Figure 4.4. The classroom of Haseki Medrese in 2015............................................ 313
Figure 4.5. Post refunctioning use of the classroom of Haseki Medrese for group
lectures in 2023 (Private Archive of Muammer Saraç) ........................................... 314
Figure 4.6. Post refunctioning use of the room on the west side of the classroom as a
teacher's office in Haseki Medrese in 2023 (Private Archive of Muammer Saraç) . 315
Figure 4.7. Courtyard and revaks of Haseki Medrese in 2023 (Private Archive of
Muammer Saraç) ...................................................................................................... 315
Figure 4.8. Broadcasting and air-conditioning installations in the classroom of Rabi
Medrese in 2015 ....................................................................................................... 318
Figure 4.9. Air-conditioning installation on the classroom façade of Rabi Medrese in
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 318
Figure 4.10. Courtyard of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2023 (Çayeli Foundation) .... 320
Figure 4.11. Use of revaks for an opening ceremony of an exhibition in Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese in 2017 (Çayeli Foundation)...................................................................... 320
Figure 4.12. Use of revaks for an exhibition in Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2017 (Çayeli
Foundation) .............................................................................................................. 321
Figure 4.13. Use of revaks and courtyard for a broad participated social event in Kılıç
Ali Paşa Medrese in 2018 (Çayeli Foundation) ....................................................... 321
Figure 4.14. Use of architectural elements in the rooms of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 322
Figure 4.15. Use of the classroom of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese as administration office in
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 323
Figure 4.16. The façade lighting in Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 2015 .................. 324
Figure 4.17. The use of courtyard in Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2015 ..................... 326
Figure 4.18. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Şehzade Medrese
in 2013 (Private Archive of Kübra Construction Co.) ............................................. 328
Figure 4.19. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Rüstem Paşa
Medrese in 2015 ....................................................................................................... 328
Figure 4.20. Ornamented architectural elements in the transition zone of the classroom
of Rüstem Paşa Medrese in 2015 ............................................................................. 329
Figure 4.21. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Rabi Medrese in
2015 .......................................................................................................................... 329
Figure 4.22. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese in 2015 ....................................................................................................... 330
Figure 4.23. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Siyavuş Paşa
Medrese in 2016 ....................................................................................................... 330
Figure 4.24. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa
Medrese in 2015 ....................................................................................................... 331
Figure 4.25. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Sultan Ahmet
Medrese in 2016 ....................................................................................................... 331
xxxi
Figure 4.26. The use of a room for projection in cinematic order in Rüstem Paşa
Medrese in 2015 ....................................................................................................... 334
Figure 4.27. The use of an eivan as a storege for garden events in Rüstem Paşa Medrese
in 2015 ...................................................................................................................... 334
Figure 4.28. Post refunctioning extention of kitchen use in the north revaks in Sultan
Ahmet Medrese in 2018 ........................................................................................... 337
Figure 4.29. The ablution fountain and some other movable architectural elements in
the courtyard of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2016 ..................................................... 338

xxxii
 LIST OF GRAPHICS

GRAPHIC
Graphic 1. Distribution of Ottoman medreses within Ottoman Territory
depending on centuries (A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999)..................... 29
Graphic 2. Percantages of sizes of existing medreses in Istanbul .............................. 63
Graphic 3. Percantages of existing medreses considering their programs ................. 63
Graphic 4. Distribution of numbers of existing medreses on both centuries and
their programs ............................................................................................................ 64

xxxiii
 ABBREVIATIONS

DGF: Directorate General of Foundations

IRDF: Istanbul Ist Regional Directorate of Foundations
EVOS: Electronic Foundation Automation System of Directorate General of
Foundations
IHMR: Istanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan Report
IHCR: Istanbul Historic Peninsula Conservation Report
ICOMOS: International Committee of Monuments and Sites
CIAM: Congress of Modern Architecture
PPS: Planning Policy Statement of English Heritage
GEEAYK: Supreme Council of Immovable Ancient Buildings and Monuments
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
TMMKB: ICOMOS Turkey Architectural Heritage Conservation Charter
KVKYK: Supreme Council of Cultural Heritage Protection
KVKBK: Regional Council of Protection of Cultural Heritage
IMM: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality

xxxiv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of the Problem

Since the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman State in 1453, hundreds of medreses
were built in different parts and districts of the city in accordance with the education
system of the period. The fact that Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire and
the center of high-level education and science for centuries is an important factor in
the construction of so many medreses in the city. The majority of these medreses were
located in a group of building designed in a program, either as the secondary or the
main structure of the group. In addition to this, there are very few medreses built as a
single structure. Medreses are single-storey and mostly stand-alone structures with a
special architectural character, consisting of revaks surrounding a courtyard,
independent rooms opening to the revaks, and a classroom. The relationship between
the courtyard, the revaks, the classroom and the rooms are based on the hierarchy of
open-semi open-closed spaces that come together in different compositions.

In 19th century, when the education system changed, medrese architecture also
differed according to the changing needs program and architectural trend. Therefore,
in the 19th century is a period in which the interest in the use of the previous medrese
structures began to decline, as the old education system began to be abandoned, and a
new education structure architecture based on the classroom order emerged. In this
aspect, 19th century medreses have different functional potential than previous
medreses with their space capacities and architectural designs.

In addition to the decreasing interest in old medreses due to the changing

understanding of education, the need for military power and mobilization movements
that emerged due to the long wars at the the end of 19th century and the beginning of
20th century led to the abandonment of more madrasas without students and being
unfunctional. Thus, most of the medreses were started to be used by the orphans and
disaster survivors for residental purposes or by the invaders for commercial and similar
purposes. At the beginning of the Republican Period, the education system was
completely changed with the Law of Unification of Education adopted in 1924 and
1
this caused a small number of active medrese buildings to become unfunctional. After
this date, madrasas were transferred to the Ministry of National Education, some of
them were adapted as primary school buildings, some of them were demolished and
instead school buildings were built in a proper architecture in accordance with the
needs of the new education system. Later, the medrese buildings were transferred to
the municipalities and they were subjected to different functions for the activities of
the institution such as museums and dispensers. In the research carried out within the
scope of the thesis, it is seen that the examples of medreses used by different
foundations, associations or universities for educational and cultural activities
gradually increase over time.

In the preliminary research carried out within the scope of the thesis, 210 madrasas
built before 19th century have been identified. 124 of these madrasas were completely
destroyed over time for different reasons, and even the land of some of them was
disappeared in maps. 86 of the medreses which are the subject of the study reached the
21th century and as it is summarized above, most of them are used with different
functions by different users, some of them are under the ongoing restoration to be re-
functionalized, and some of them are in an unfunctional state for different reasons. 73
of the 86 medreses reaching the 21th century are under the responsibility of the General
Directorate of Foundations.

Since 2002, the intensive efforts of the General Directorate of Foundations to increase
foundation revenues have also enabled an intense increase in the restoration works of
foundation cultural assets. In this context, it is known that, foundation incomes
increased 15 times, and more than 25 thousand unregistered foundation properties
were registered in the land registry, under the responsibility of the general directorate
in 2010. Within the scope of the restoration movements, which are highlighted with
mottos such as 1111 Foundation Heritage Restoration, it is seen that the medreses were
restored by refunctioning within the restoration works for many historical foundation
heritage buildings which are in need of repair. 10 medreses under the responsibility of
the General Directorate of Foundations, most of them were re-functionalized
simultaneously, have been subjected to refunctioning in the period after 2002.

However, Turkey is a country that closely follows and implements the developments
in the world in the field of cultural heritage protection. It has a dynamic organizational

2
structure that quickly enacts and puts into practice the protection principles accepted
by ICOMOS as well.

It is observed from the existing examples that during the refunctioning of medreses,
they were subjected to inappropriate uses or exposed to inappropriate interventions
due to their special architectural structures and space constraints. Existing examples
from the past, raise the question “at what level the contemporary conservation
approach can be applied to medrese structures having special adaptation problems”
within the scope of newly emerging intensive restoration works.

1.2. Aim and Scope of the Research

The aim of this work is to understand and evaluate the positive and negative impacts
of different reuse applications on the significance of Ottoman medreses in the light of
recently adopted and applied reuse processes. Thus, it will be understood better that
which criteria, requirements and limitations of the possible suitable uses, processes
and interventions help to protect and survive the significance of medreses with their
values. Hence, this leads to the criteria, requirements and limitations that should be
considered in reuse decisions, processes and interventions.

Scope of the work is limited with the self-standing Ottoman medreses which were built
before 19th century and subjected to a refunctioning process from 2000’s by 2016 in
Istanbul. The medreses sharing the same courtyard with a mosque and the
reconstructed medreses are not topic of this study.

1.3. Reuse of Historical Buildings: A Conservation Attitude

Reuse of historic buildings is not a new approach. Since ancient times, societies used
the old buildings for their new purposes. Roman people used to use old or vacant
buildings for their current needs (Feilden 2003). Similarly, Ottomans adapted Roman
heritage for their cultural and social uses. However, these uses were not for
conservation, they were based on a pragmatic manner considering those heritage as a
building stock. Through the end of 19th century, the term conservation has been
developed in Europe and reuse has been adopted as a part of conservation in England

3
with SPAB Manifesto in 1877 for the first time (SPAB). Although the first
international document Athens Charter, which is adopted in the First International
Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM 1) in 1931, has slightly mentioned about
reuse of historic monuments,1 this topic has been developed in many countries by
institutions and conservation specialists during the following years. 33 years later,
conservation criteria were declared focusing on the use of historic monuments with
the Venice Charter which was adopted in the Second International Congress of Modern
Architecture (CIAM 2) in 19642. Since then, these criteria have been adopted as basic
principles of conservation activities. Documents of International Council of
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), after the Council has been established in 1964 in
CIAM 2, brought more detailed and enhanced criteria on reuse and conservation
issues. These ICOMOS documents including reuse recommendations are; Convention
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris Convention) in
19723, Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada
Declaration)4 in 1985, Washington Charter in 19875, European Archaeological
Heritage Protection Act in 1992, Burra Charter in 19996 and Walletta Principles in
20117. Furthermore, Faro Convention, which was adopted by European Union in 2005,

1
The 4nd article states to reuse the existing monuments with reinstating the parts to avoid the dangers
of dismantling. The article aims to preserve aspect and character of consolidated monuments. It allows
to use modern technique, modern material and encourages to use reinforced concrete.
However the charter focuses on conservation of artistic monuments especially in archaeological sites.
It aimed to present those monuments as a museum or pieces of a museum. It also encourages
interdscyipliner and international collaboration to create a legislative frame and advices education for
awarneses of societies about respecting to the historic monuments.
2
In 5th article of Venice Charter it is expressed that; “The conservation of monuments is always
facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purposes. Such use is therefore desirable but
it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building. It is within these limits only that
modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted.”
(ICOMOS)
3
. The 5.a) article of the convention “encourages the parts to assign a function to the cultural and
natural heritage”.
4
According to the 11th article of this convention, all parts accept to use the historic buildings taking into
account the needs of contemporary life and to foster the adaptation when appropriate of old buildings
for new uses. 12th article encourages the public access to the historic property due to its importance,
however, it stipulates to ensure the negative consequences of this permission on the architectural and
historical character of such properties and their surroundings.
5
Washington Charter also mentions about the impact of the new use on the character of the building
stating that: “New functions and activities should be compatible with the character of the historic towns
or urban area”.
6
21th article of the Burra Charter emphasises the revision of possible alternative uses considering the
significance of the cultural heritage:”… adaptation should involve to minimum change to significance
fabric, achieved only after considering alternatives” (Australia ICOMOS).
7
A) In Walletta Principles important parameters for new use decision is stated as: “Before
introducing a new activity, it is necessary to consider the number of users involved, the length of
utilization, compatibility with other existing activities and the impact on traditional local practices.”

4
emphasizes that “conservation and sustainable use of cultural heritage increase
human development and quality of life”.

1.3.1. A Retrospective Look at Reuse of Historical Buildings

Conservation, is the process that transfers the historic building to the future generations
keeping their tangible and intangible values (Feilden 1982). This inevitably requires
using these historical buildings with new functions to retain them for centuries and
make a connection between past, present and future (Aydın &Esra, 2010/1). This is
also important to rise cultural and memorial values of societies living in the historical
towns as well as to increase the quality of urban life (Köksal & Ahunbay 2006).
According to Bond and Worthing, “new uses may be part of the natural development
of an asset or may be essential for securing its future, thereby safeguarding
significance” (Worthing and Bond 2007). For these reasons, reuse decision is the first
step and reuse process is a complementary part of a holistic conservation process.

In 1900’s, many of historical buildings have been turned into museums with the effects
of Athens Charter. However, modern tendence is to make more innovation on the
heritage building to provide stronger contact with them (Riaubiene 2012, p.25). For
this reason, firstly a heritage asset must be understood well to interpret it, then it must
be appreciated and consequently can be protected (Feilden 2003). This does not mean

B) In “Policies and Strategies” section, tourism activities are evaluated and controlled
“Tourism activity must respect and not interfere with the daily life of residents. Too great an influx of
tourists is a danger for the preservation of monuments and historic areas.”
C) Characteristics of monuments are expressed in the 4th article of the Walletta Principles as:
“The form and appearance,
Interior and exterior of buildings as defined by their structure,
Volume,
Style,
Scale,
Materials,
Colour
Decoration”.
D) In the same article, it is also expressed to consider the interaction between the monument
and the related environment as “relationship between the town or urban area and its surrounding, the
various functions that the town or urban area has acquired over time and cultural traditions … of a
place”.
E) Another point paying attention while adapting or re-using a building, either historical or
modern, is to create a green building. As to do this “non‐renewable resources, minimizing their
consumption and encouraging their reuse and recycling”
F) In 4i. article of Walletta Principles, green architecture and green conservation are
emphasized as: “All interventions in historic towns and urban areas, while respecting historic heritage
characteristics, should aim to improve energy efficiency and to reduce pollutants.”

5
that every historical building has to be protected by using it with a new function. Some
of historical buildings may be sensitive to change, while others may be more capable
of accommodating new functions. It should be considered that necessary alterations to
accommodate a possible use may not always cause an unacceptable loss of significance
(PPS 2010).

Most of architectural monuments fulfill both cultural and functional role in historic
towns, while some of those have lost their original functions, such as medreses. When
a historical building cannot be used anymore for the same function due to different
reasons, it becomes necessary to reuse it with a new and proper function so as to adapt
it to the life and to conserve it. Moreover, as historical buildings make an important
part of the existing building stock in historic towns, reuse of these buildings also means
to reduce the use of natural sources used for constructing a new building and to
contribute to environmental, social and economic sustainability.

On the other hand, with the development on the global tourism between 1980-1990’s,
not only in translocal character but also in transnational form, historic buildings and
historic urban areas began to serve for touristic facilities (Aygen 2013). Especially
some tax incentive programs and funds supported by governments encourage the
private sector for converting the historic building to accommodative uses for tourism
(Aygen 2013). There were some governmental investment programs to rise the tourism
in Turkey in 1980’s. Within these programs, many of historic Anatolian caravanserais
and bedestens were converted into hotels and restaurants (Öner 1982).

According to early 2000’s conservation approach, sensitively designed projects

including minimum intervention were adopted by conservators, in spite of the
enforcement of reuse necessities on historic buildings (Aygen 2013). However, with
the effects of tourism attraction capability of heritage places sometimes ending up with
the governmental investments and interventions on these places, historic places can
increase disneyification of these places. Thus, tourism attraction capability is a thread
on refunctioning of historical buildings that has to be managed carefully.

Nevertheless, in 21st century, together with the developing tendencies on preservation

approaches and strategies, states pay attention to use energy-efficient solutions,
environmentally friendly technologies, sustainable methods and they emphasize
regional participations, while they develop their own preservation strategies (Aygen

6
2013). This requires care and high consciousness to preserve the historic buildings
while conserving them. This more sensitive approach is one of the factors affecting
the development decisions of states and design trends (The Greenest Building 2011).

On the other hand, heritage use can vary depending on the users’ objectives and
expectations. It needs to provide a balance between the expectations of owners/users
and protection of their values (Riaubiene 2012). Especially recent international
documents, such as Faro Convention, emphasize and encourage the people’s
contribution to the sustainable protection. Thus, public, user’s and owners’
expectations become another important input to be analyzed carefully while make a
reuse decision for a historic building.

For this reason, new functions are open to different threats on necessary steps for
interior design. These threats are;

1) User and use originated threats

a. Compatibility of new function with the cultural asset

b. Preparing a proper functional program

c. Frequent functional changes

d. Identity of users

2) Threats from design and designer (experience of the designer on historic

buildings)

3) Threats from application and appliers (qualification of workers)

4) Legislative threats (not having a legal status or control of interior design

projects)

5) Other threats

a. Investment and investor originated threats (economic priorities and

luxury needs to show richness of person’s without considering that a historic building
is a common heritage of the society)

b. Economic insufficiency

c. Educational insufficiency of society.

7
Unfortunately, assigning of new function to a historic building rises these threats and
they may cause loss of significance inside, while outside of the building is well
conserved (Gönül 2010).

For these reasons, reuse process –from understanding the building to make necessary
interventions- include sociocultural, environmental and technical components that
they need to be managed with a sensitive balance between past experiences, todays’
expectations and respect to the building’s significance.

1.3.2. A Review of Reuse Examples from Different Countries

Considering the recommendations of international documents, developed countries

have prepared their own conservation principals and guidelines to put the general
principles of the country into the conservators’ attention to standardized design,
approval and implementation steps of conservation process:

In United States of America, The Secretary of the Interior published the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 first time, just after adoption of the Venice Charter,
and numbers of buildings has been listed and protected as a result of this act (Domer
2009). Then the Secretary released the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines
for Historic Rehabilitation in 1977 and revised them in 1990. In these standards of 10
articles, it is stated that a historic property shall be used for its historic purposes or for
a new use needed a minimal change on define-character features of the building, its
site and environment.8 These standards recommend to rehabilitate a historic building

8
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings, 1990, U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance
Division, Washington, D.C.
These Standards;
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal
change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their
own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in

8
considering economic and technical feasibility at first, while its historic character
being retained and preserved (Appendice A.1).

In the guidelines, new use changes are explained in rehabilitation works in detail
considering exterior and interior features, site and setting characteristics, energy
efficiency retrofittings, new architectural additions, disable accessibility and health
and safety codes (Appendice A.2). In the USA Guideline, as principal, it is
recommended to use the historical buildings for new purposes paying importance their
architectural and historic significance. It is also recommended under the
“alterations/additions” titles of the guideline that new additions for new uses should
be compatible with the historic feature of the building in terms of size, scale,
design, material, color and texture. On the other hand, the guideline allows to add
new openings, walls, floors, stairs and atriums in accordance with the current codes
and allows to load needed mechanical, plumbing and electrical installations, air-
conditioning systems, elevators and other new materials to the historic building.
Another point that is expressed in the guideline is to avoid to create the parking area
adjacent to the historic building to preserve the landscape (The Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards 1990).

Having been published, these standards were codified for Federal Historic
Preservation Tax Incentives Program. With publication of this guideline, rehabilitation
of historic buildings has been encouraged with federal and state programs including
10% or 20% tax credits in US (Manjusha 2009).

In Canada, preservation standards and guidelines are adopted by numbers of federal,

provincial, territorial and municipal authorities in 2003 and they have been enhanced
in 2010 (Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials
shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials
that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.

9
2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada has
been released to provide a philosophical approach to conservation activities.
According to conservation standards of Canada, finding a new use for a historic
property requiring minimal or no change on character-defining elements is
recommended. In the guidelines, conservation activities of buildings are defined
including preservation, rehabilitation and restoration works. Guidelines for reuse
activities are explained in preservation and rehabilitation titles. In Canadian
guidelines, exterior form is the most important character defining feature to decide the
new function. Because, exterior form of a historic building refers to orientation, scale,
massing, composition, proportions, colour and texture, and it is related with its
surroundings. Exterior form also has a concrete relationship between interior
arrangement (Appendice A.3 and A.4). In the guidelines, re use criterias of a historic
building is handled according to its features (under the titles of form, assemblies and
systems) case by case assessing the significance, new use decisions, needed additions
and alterations, health&safety and accessibility and sustainability (that is energy
efficiency) requirements (Appendice A.4).

In United Kingdom, three main documents accepted in about conservation and

adaptation of cultural heritage; SPAB Manifesto, The Venice Charter, English
Heritage: Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. Planning Policy Statement
5: Planning and the historic environment (PPS5) recommends to preserve historic
assets (including individual or group of buildings) in controlled active uses. However,
those uses should be viable with the significance of the building. According to PPS5,
understanding the significance bases on understanding the characteristics of the asset
including “orientation, layout, plan-form, setting, materials, the disposition of
openings, external detailing and internal fittings” (PPS5 2010). Plan form and internal
features are sometimes the most important characteristics of a historic building that
form its significance. PPS5 recommends to make both desk-based assessment and on-
site evaluation to understand the significance of a historic asset. “The significance of
a heritage asset is the sum of its architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological
interest” (PPS 5 2010). While adapting a historic building to a new use, its form as
well as external and internal features may cause some restrictions; for example,
agricultural and industrial buildings are generally capable of insertion of additional
floors, doors, windows and sub-divisions, while the domestic ones are more sensitive

10
to accept these alterations. Rooflight additions for new spaces may also effect the
building significance. Regarding the functional changes, the guidelines also draw an
attention to the capacity or sensitivity of the historic buildings. PPS5 take a special
attention to the reuse decision that “viable use should be decided not for the owner but
also for the future of the cultural asset” (PPS 5 2010). Detailed statements for
rehabilitation of historic buildings, including reuse criterias is explained in PPS 6 (PPS
6 1999) (Appendice A.5).

In addition to international and national standards and principals, there are also reuse
approaches of scholars and experts. Sir Bernard Melchior Feilden explains his reuse
approach in his book named Conservation of Historic Buildings (Feilden 2003).
Accordingly; reuse process should follow analysis and understanding the building
respecting its values, analysis of possible alternative uses and proposal of a reuse, and
project design (Appendice A.6). William Shopsin’s reuse approach, explained in his
book Restoring Old Buildings for Contemporary Uses: An American Sourcebook for
Architects and Preservationists, depends on a profitable perspective that consider the
historical building as an economically feasible investment tool. He does not mention
about protection of values of the building, while considering socio-economic issues in
a respectful manner (Appendice A.7).

While the above-mentioned approaches, standards and guidelines can be elaborated

more, the main issues, concepts and processes do not vary much. All in old, giving
reuse decisions based on a comprehensive architectural, historic, social and economic
analysis and evaluation of the historical building and its context, considering the
adaptive capacity and the values of the historical building are commonly mentioned
issues.

1.3.3. Legislative Framework of Reuse of Historical Buildings in Turkey:

Although Turkey has a rich architectural heritage from different cultures, there is no
official guidelines or criterias for reuse decisions or possible interventions within
conservation processes in Turkey. However, in Ottoman Period, the first conservative
approach on historic buildings had started with the Ancient Monument Conservation

11
Act in 1912.9 Then, Ancient Monument Conservation Council was established in 1917
for registering the heritage and supervision of conservation activities (Güçhan, Kul
2009). Supreme Council of Immovable Ancient Buildings and Monuments -
GEEAYK- established in 1951 was the first expert agency about making a decision on
conservation activities including interventions (Madran 1996). The Council defined
the conservation areas in Historic Peninsula of Istanbul.10 Since 1973, when the
“Monuments Law” no 1710 is adopted, all the cultural assets as well as medreses in
Turkey have begun to be registered as “monument” in accordance with the law.
Occupying and/or damaging a monument had been considered as a crime, the right of
taking a new use decision about monuments had been assigned to the GEEAYK and
conservation and expropriation responsibility on foundation originated cultural assets
had been given to DGF.

As Turkey is a member of UNESCO (since 1946), established the national council of

ICOMOS in 1974 and a nominated country for European Union, all the principals of
international documents regarding reuse and conservation are valid for Turkey. Turkey
also adopted some of them as part of national legislation, such as; Convention for the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris Convention) in 197211,
Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada
Declaration)12 in 1985 and European Archaeological Heritage Protection Act in 1992.

Besides these international guiding documents accepted by the government, there are
also laws, regulations and plans which are effective in national and local levels, such
as; Cultural Heritage Protection Law No.2863 and local conservation plans for
historical settlements and towns.

9
Before Ancient Monument Conservation Act, there were four Ancient Monuments Regulations
released in 1869, 1874, 1884 and 1906. These regulations rather focused on movable heritage,
establishing museums for protection them and archaeological heritage.
10
In 1953 Sultanahmet Archaeologic Park, in 1977 Suleymaniye Mosque and surround, in 1979 Zeyrek
Mosque and surround, in 1981 Historic Land Walls of Istanbul and around has been adopted as
conservation sites by GEEAYK.
11
Turkey has accepted this Convention with 14.04.1982 dated law.
12
Turkey has adopted this convention with a special law in 13/04/1989.

12
The Role of Cultural Heritage Protection Law No.2863

In use regulations on conservation field in Turkey were organized by Cultural Heritage

Protection Law No:2863 adopted in 198313. In 2004, some revisions had been made
on the law and the terms “Site Management” and “Site Management Plan” included in
the law following definition World Heritage Sites of Istanbul by UNESCO. In
addition, some reuse and construction conditions have been decided with the law no
5366 “The Law Regarding Conservation with Revitalization and Using with Surviving
of Deteriorated Historic and Cultural Immovable Assets”14 and law no 2634 “Tourism
Encouragement Law”. Furthermore, law no 5216 “Metropolitan Municipality Law”,
law no 5393 “Municipality Law” and law no 5737 “Foundations Law” also includes
some reuse and conservation rights to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism,
Metropolitan and Provincial Municipalities and General Directorate for Foundations.

The law no 2863 assigned the Protection Councils of Cultural Heritage to take a
decision on conservation of cultural heritage in detail.15 Reuse definitions and criterias
are declared in the Principal Decisions of The Supreme Council of Cultural Heritage
Protection (KVKYK). According to the Principal Decision No 660 declared in 1999,
reuse additions, their qualifications, designs and integrations with the historic building
have to be decided by architect and proposed to the KVKYK’s approval (660 no.lu
İlke Kararı 1999). Under the project preparation criterias of the same decision, it is
expected to be explained in a complementary report the general approaches for reuse
interventions including;

• Interventions to the original layout, elements, structure and materials,

• Reuse interventions on both spaces and elements,
• Implementation proposals,
• General principles for mechanical and electrical systems and sanitary
installations (660 nolu İlke Kararı 1999).

13
With approval of this law, the law no 1710 has been cancelled.
14
In accordance with this law, “revitalisation areas” have been defined and “Revitalisation Councils”
have been established to make a decision about revitalisation projects to be developed within these
areas. Revitalisation Projects aim to rehabilitate socio-economic structure of the area and allow to
develope new projects despite the protection decisions of councils. In accordance with this law, between
2006-2007, 15 “revitalisation area” has been decided within the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul. (IHMR)
15
According to 15th article of Law no 2863 “Regional Councils Of Cultural Heritage Protection are
allowed to take a reuse decision while deciding the expropriation of a cultural asset”.

13
These requirements describe a general framework and authorize the designer and the
Protection Council about reuse decision and implementations without any principals,
criteria or description for allowed or not allowed issues.

The Role of Directorate General of Foundations

Under these general legislative frameworks, the owner institution DGF allocated the
medreses to governmental institutions, to universities or to NGO’s, that are
foundations and associations, which have a status of “association working for social
benefits - kamu yararına çalışan dernek” with the conditions of “to be used for social-
cultural purposes”and “restoring the medrese” in accordance with the article 59 of
Foundations Regulation. These conditions are expressed in granting decisions of the
Council of Foundations. Since 2008, with the acceptance of the Foundations Law no
5737, the Council of Foundations has been the only authorized administrative body to
allocate the immovable foundation properties for charity activities assigned in their
foundation deeds.16

The Role of Istanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan

In 2011, The Head of Istanbul Historic Sites Management prepared “Istanbul Historic
Peninsula Conservation Site Management Plan” and planned some detailed projects,
took some decisions and defined some criterias on conservation area including reuse
decisions (IHMR). These plans draw an international framework for conservation
activities in historic peninsula of Istanbul and forces the stakeholders for collaboration
by means of planned projects.

For this reason, in 21.03.2013, “ICOMOS Turkey Architectural Heritage Conservation

Charter” (TMMKB) was declared by ICOMOS Turkey National Committee with a
wide participation of Universities and Institutions as a first step for further
“Conservation Principals of Turkey” (Binan 2014). TMMKB explains a conceptual
frame for conservation, describes the values of a monument to be protected, then
explains the conservation process and finally it describes conservation policies

16
Before 2008, Council of Ministers used to have this authorization.

14
regarding legislative framework, professionals, stakeholders and education.17
Conservation process explained in TMMKB includes three main steps; architectural
heritage definitions-analysis-evaluation, definitions of intervention principals,
definitions of intervention types-approaches-scales.

2010’s architectural conservation approach of Turkey “depends on scientific and

systematic researches and evaluations”, “respects to the cultural production of
mankind” and is “an action needs cultural, artistic and technic proficiency” (TMMKB
2013).

“Istanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan” which was approved by Cultural

Heritage Council, defines the heritage buildings to be used for cultural and art facilities
(Management Plan 1/1000, 2011, p.161, article VIH2S2E2). The management plan
also advices to facilitate social-cultural activities, to support creative design industries
– for example shoe design, jewelry design-, to develop existing museums and to open
new museums for exhibiting movable heritage staying in storages within the whole
historic peninsula. It also encourages to create tourism routes, accessibility of historic
buildings and preparing visitor management plans for important heritage buildings.
“Istanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan” gives plan decision making
responsibility to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. In addition, “Ministry of Tourism
and Culture, Provincial Directorate of Tourism and Culture, General Directorate of
Cultural Assets and Museums, Fatih Provincial Municipality, TUROB, TURSAB,
TUREB, other tourism associations, other related NGO’s, individual cultural
institutions, universities” are related responsible institutions for these facilities (IHMR
2011, p.161-162).

According to “Conservation Plan Report of Istanbul Historic Peninsula” prepared by

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in 2011, most of the medreses are assigned for
either Cultural or Social-Cultural functions. However, some of medreses’ long-term
uses are respected in the plan. This plan decisions lead other refunctioning decisions.

17
In chapter two of the charter of Architectural Heritage Protection Charter of Turkey; the importance
of reuse is described. In fourth chapter, after explaining the adaptive reuse, it is expressed that
“originality, integrity and significance of a building should be admired”.

15
The Importance of Interior Design Project on Refunctioning of Cultural Heritage

In literature, interior design projects should be prepared by professionals; by interior

architects or architects who are experienced on interior design. However, interior
design projects are not officially controlled and approved in Turkey (Gönül 2010).

1.3.4. An Assesment

In literature, reuse process is described starting with understanding, documentation

and project designing, implementation, assessing and monitoring steps. Reuse
decisions are taken by interdisciplinary works of architects, engineers, art historians
and other related professionals. Understanding step includes the detailed history and
architectural properties of the historical building with former uses; documentation step
is to show all the existing physical and structural conditions of it including “survey of
the building;” and “internal environment investigations”. Survey of the building
includes measured drawings, restitution project and reports, material and stratigraphic
analyses, while internal environment investigations include structural analysis and
environmental aspects of it (Feilden 1982). Interior design projects are also important
for conserving the interior character of the cultural asset. However, in legislative
framework of Turkey, there is no description, restriction or guidance referring to reuse
process of historical buildings.

Following the implementation step, assessment of rehabilitations, additions and

changes is essential for an appropriate reuse work. Monitoring of historical building
and management of group of building during new use are also important steps for
sustainability.

On the other hand, management plans and maintenance plans which are the
complementary part of the management plans are vital documents for sustainability of
a proper refunctioning. According to conservation approaches of English Heritage, a
“maintenance plan for a smaller historic building is simply of an “inspection checklist
ensuring the continuity of the good maintenance practices”. In addition, “the
maintenance plan should highlight all the areas particularly at risk and assign
responsibilities of individuals” regarding both interior and surrounding the building.
“Maintenance plan should also make a provision for building services such as fire

16
detection systems, electrical and plumbing systems” because these rehabilitation
installations may be a potential risk for historic fabric surrounding the historic
building. Maintenance inspection may be periodic or occasional. All the inspections
and maintenance works should be recorded, if possible, with photographs for
monitoring the parts of building at risk (Historicengland).

In conclusion, considering the legal conservation frame of Turkey and general criterias
in the international documents as well as other developed approaches, a reuse process
for a cultural heritage may be formed with the steps including understanding the
building (with all necessary researches and documentation), significance assessment
(definitions of values to be protected), reuse decision, project designing (with
complementary reports), implementation, impact assessment and monitoring.

During the whole process it is necessary to consider interdisciplinary collaboration

with conservation professionals (archaeologist, architect, engineers and other
dscyplines needed for the case) owners, users and (if necessary) residents. It is also
important to obtain a sustainable adaptation that using environmentally friendly
technologies, considering energy efficiency and emphasizing social accessibility.
Codes are major and restrictive factors for reuse and rehabilitation decisions. Financial
parameters (total cost for reuse interventions, i.e.) are also more important for new use
preference, if the cultural asset is in private ownership.

These steps may also be applied for medreses to handle the reuse process in building
scale.

1.3. Methodology

Methodology of this thesis was formed during the survey of the initial topic “An
Example for the Functional-Preservation Problems of Open Courtyarded Educational
Buildings of the Ottoman Era in the 21st Century: The Case of Sultan Ahmet Medrese”
in 2010. With the richness of the data collecting by the first site survey, and the need
of understanding the reasons of existing reuse decisions and changes, the topic and the
methodology changed. Thus, in this topic, the methodology will be explained starting
with the first methodologic approach that finalizes the topic of the thesis and the
methodology of the thesis as well.

17
Conceptual Decision of The Topic of The Thesis and Finalization of The Decision:
This study was originated the need of understanding reuse principals for medrese
buildings. It started and formed to prepare an alternative reuse proposal for
Sultanahmet Medrese as case in 2010 at first. This medrese was accessible to
researchers since 1930’s, since it was converted into an archive storage. Furthermore,
since 2008 it has been completely empty for a new use. Thus, a methodology based on
a detailed review of contemporary reuse approaches as well as a comprehensive
assessment of the Sultan Ahmet Medrese with its potentials for new use. In addition,
as complementary research, similar refunctioned medreses were selected to assess the
reuse of medrese buildings. Selection criteria for comparative research was defined as;
similar spatial capacity, closer building periods (between early 16th and early 17th
periods) and variety of location. With these criterias, 13 medreses were selected as;
Beyazıt Medrese, Cedid Mehmet Efendi Medrese, Ekmekçizade Medrese,
Gazanferağa Medrese, Hacı Beşir Ağa Medrese, Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese,
Kuyucu Murat Paşa Medrese, Rüstem Paşa Medrese, Esekapısı Medrese, Hadım
Hasan Paşa Medrese, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese and Atik Valide Medrese.

Sultan Ahmet medrese was surveyed in 2010 and 2011 before restoration. All the
necessary data was collected from archives, literature and site. In this process, it was
decided to make a general review on all the surviving medreses in Istanbul to assess
relation between layout-reuse, location-function, long term uses and their reasons. In
order to understand the reuse range in Istanbul, general review on all medreses, both
existing and demolished, was made between 2010-2012.

Measured drawings of Sultan Ahmet Medrese was obtained from the project office
that was responsible from the restoration project of the medrese in 2008-2010. Spatial
characteristics of the medrese was studied space by space taking care of change of
natural lighting, humidity conditions, volume, architectural elements, space
dimensions, height and types of ceiling in 2010. All of these parameters were
documented by taking photographs, taking notes and drawing some sketches. A deep
literature survey had been done about Sultanahmet area, Sultan Ahmet Complex and
Sultan Ahmet Medrese. At the same time reuse methodologies and processes were
researched to choose a suitable new function and propose a reuse project for the
medrese.

18
Then, selected medreses for comparison were studied in detail; in archives, in literature
and on site with interiors. Furthermore, interviews with users were made on
advantages/restrictions of layout, user expectations, type of uses and activities that are
held in those medreses. Two different survey sheets were prepared to collect the data
that helped both new use decision and to understand the general reuse approaches on
medreses. The first sheet was general and for all surviving medreses in Istanbul (Figure
1.1); the second one was for the selected medreses and it had detailed information for
comparison (Figure 1.2). Defined parameters were compared to understand better
relationships between protection of architectural character (in other words
compatibility of new use) and new function preference.

Figure 1.1. First chart being prepared for understanding diversity of different
functions, their use periods and spatial reuse alterations of all existing Medreses in
Istanbul. (this chart was cancelled later)

19
 Figure 1.2. Second sheet for comparison of selected reused medreses in terms of
physical potentials, environmental features and effects of reuse alterations. (this chart
was cancelled latter)

During the thesis, with the detailed and valuable information obtaining by comparative
study, the general concept of the thesis has changed. Some of the medreses selected
for comparison were eliminated for some reasons. Esekapısı Medrese (Hadım İbrahim
Paşa Medrese) and Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese were eliminated as they lost their
structural integrity before restoration, so that they were reintegrated by a
comprehensive reconstruction (as in Esekapısı Medrese) or contemporary structural
interventions with contemporary materials and technique (in Hadım Hasan Paşa
Medrese). Atik Valide Medrese, Kuyucu Murat Paşa Medrese, Ekmekçizade Medrese,
Gazanferağa Medrese, Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese, Cedid Mehmet Efendi
Medrese and Hacı Beşir Ağa Medrese were eliminated as any refuncioning activity
were done for a long time or any refunctioning process would be started in the near
future.

Thus, the subject of the thesis changed into an evaluative work depending on a
comparative study on 10 medreses which were in refunctioning process; Beyazıt, Atik
Ali Paşa, Haseki, Şehzade, Rüstem Paşa, Rabi, Kılıç Ali Paşa, Siyavuş Paşa, Koca
Sinan Paşa and Sultan Ahmet medreses.

20
With the changing focus and content of the research, the detail of the survey also
changed to achieve a better understanding of the selected medreses. Innthis process,
additional parameters such as, effects of ownership, size, period on reuse decision were
included. In addition, analyzing the history of alterations in all the medreses was not
so easy in such study. On the other hand, different names for the same medrese written
in different literature and archive sources cause a trouble and needs deeper research
for getting more reliable information. Thus, the work has largely evolved; in time from
a case into an evaluation of the impact of reuse, through the selected medreses.
However, the first researches and reviews both on reuse processes and also existing
medreses obtained quite effective data for revising the outline of the thesis.

Methodology of The Thesis:

Throughout the thesis, different methods and tools are used as explained in the first
form of the thesis above. Methods used in different chapters of the thesis are literature
research, archive research (both in official and private archives), visual data
productions (from project design offices and internet sources), site survey and
interviews with users can be seen in the Figure 1.3., methodological diagram. The
distribution and the subtitles of these methods can be followed from the table parallel
to the outline and main text of the thesis.

21
 Figure 1.3. Methodological Diagram

In introduction, after a wide literature research on reuse methodologies and a quick

site survey of existing Istanbul medreses, an outline was prepared with subtitles. The
scope of the thesis was defined depending on this research and survey. Afterwards, the
thesis has been constructed on deeper literature research and on-site observations.
Closer research on international reuse criterias/procedures and their using in our
country are important to shape the general perspective throughout the thesis. This
background research may be considered rather deep; however, it was necessary for
better understanding the theoretical frame of reuse process. They also reformed the
research parameters of analysis section and offered quite effective knowledge for
evaluation of cases.

In theoretical part, the topic “medrese” was semtinized for different aspects focusing
on original use and spatial characteristics, as well as environmental and institutional
evolution and changes. Literature survey was used as main research material and visual
data productions are used to support it. Analysis and understanding the existing reuse
situation of all the medreses in Istanbul was very important for the further research.
Moreover, there were no such a review in literature, neither in books and articles nor

22
in thesis. For this reason, the first chart changed into a comprehensive list covering all
the medreses in Istanbul (Figure 1.4.). For this review, archive research is used as main
tool. Thus, a new and an original document has been produced as a preliminary work
in the thesis. The results gave valuable datas for review of reuse of medreses and
helped for evaluation of the case study results.

Figure 1.4. Analytic list including all existing/demolished medreses of Istanbul that
have been researched

Analysis part is the main structural part of the thesis. In this part; site survey, archive
research, literature research, visual data products and interviews are used intensively
on each case. History of change in use, change in close environment, that is the context,
architectural characteristics, former reuse approaches/interventions and
contemporary/the last interventions and methodological reuse approaches are tried to
be understand for each of 10 cases. In order to analyze these parameters systematically,
two charts have been produced as Chart X.1. and Chart X.2. for each medrese. (Figures
1.5. and 1.6.) In addition, literature sources and archive documents are used to make
clear these parameters. Theoretical part of the thesis is also used to support the visuals,
measured and schematic drawings in charts. Chart X.1. shows the historic
architectural, environmental and functional features of a medrese, as possible as closer
to the original. It also includes some information about the building, brief
refunctioning history of the medrese and change of ownership. This information
gathered from mainly DGF, Regional Cultural Council’s (KVKBK) and Prime
Ministry archives and also from reference books, encyclopedias and thesis. Drawings
are obtained from different sources; mainly from archives that are mentioned above
and directly from private archives of drawing offices.

The most important work of the thesis basis both Chart X.2. and explanatory content
from history to today. Chart X.2. shows the last reuse interventions and spatial use
decisions in an analytic way. In other words, contemporary reuse approaches and
implementations are documented in this study. Site survey, archive research, literature
research and visual data sources and products (Google Earth captures or Istanbul

23
Metropolitan Municipality visual database) are the main sources that are used in Chart
X.2. Interviews are used for enlighten unclear points of prepared projects and reports,
as well as to understand the reuse intentions to be planned for ongoing restoration
works. Site survey dates are noted in the chart as reference for future researchers.

Figure 1.5. Example of CHART X.1. (Chart 1.1. for Beyazıt Medrese)

Figure 1.6. Example of CHART X.2. (Chart 1.2. for Beyazıt Medrese)

24
Positive and negative impacts of different reuse implementations on the architectural
character of case medreses are discussed in evaluation chapter. Comparison is the main
tool for evaluation and simple tables used for visualization. Background survey in
introduction, theoretical research, analytic list produced in theoretical part and maps
showing the existing environmental situation are also used within this general
evaluation. Thus, literature and archive researches, site survey and visual data products
are main tools used for both evaluation and throughout the thesis.

In the light of all these evaluations and discussions, it was tried to understand;

1- If the reuse processes that were applied in the medreses were parallel to the
overviewed process in the Chapter 1.3. (see Chapter 4.2)

2- How kind of functions were more compatible with the character of medrese
buildings and how kind of conservation/rehabilitation approaches and
installation tools are proper for the medreses for their sustainable survive with
their values. (see Chapter 4.2)

25
26
 CHAPTER II

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL: OVERVIEW OF

FUNCIONAL, SPATIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

Medrese is the most important institution of Islamic civil education. Civil education
system was composed of primary schools –sıbyan mektebi- and high schools –
medreses- (Baltacı 2005-1). In early periods, Islamic civil education was in mosques
like ancient civilizations.18 The first individual educational building out of mosque,
called “Beytü’l-Hikme”, was first established by Abbasids in Baghdad in 832. Then,
similar schools had been expanded through Egypt (Baltacı 2005-1). The term
“medrese” was first started to be used in 9th century, however, as an institution, the
first medrese was established and built in 10th century in the city Merv by Karahanids.
Ghaznavids also built medreses in Ghazna and Nishabur in the same century (Baltacı
2005-1, p.60). It is accepted that the reson of existing the first medreses around these
cities is the cultural and architectural interaction between the old Buddhist charity
complexes, called “vihara”, of Ancient Uyghur Turks which were built in the third
century (B.C.) around those cities (Baltacı 2005-1, p.61, Kuran 1969, p.9). Then,
medrese architecture had been developed between XIth and 13th centuries in Khorasan
and Transoxania region by Ghaznavids, Kharakanids and Seljukids (Orman 2003).

Great Seljukids developed the medrese in both as an institution and architecture and
they built very famous Nizamiye Medreses first in Baghdad in 1066-1067 by
Nizamulmulk who was the famous vizier of Sultan Alparslan. Nizamiye Medreses
were taken as example by the whole Islamic World in terms of organization and
administration (Baltacı 2005-1) as well as architecture. This tradition moved to
Anatolia by Anatolian Seljukids and followed by Municipalities and then Ottomans
(Baltacı 2005-1).

18
In Sumers, there were educational buildings constructed very close to temples. (Baltacı 2005-1)

27
Since 14th century, Ottomans built medreses throughout the whole territory. In 16th
century, there were 503 medreses within the border of Ottoman Empire. However, the
exact number was more than 503 (Baltacı 2005-2). As Istanbul was capital of the state
for the longest time, between 1453-1923, most of those medreses were built in Istanbul
(Figure 2.1). In 1869, there were 172 medreses in Istanbul and 160 of those were in
historic peninsula (A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999, p.159) (Figure 2.2), 1
in Eyüp, 1 in Tophane, 1 in Beşiktaş, 3 in Üsküdar were actively used and 6 medrese
were in ruins or closed. In 1914, there were 185 active medreses in Istanbul (Ahunbay
1994). Today, 85 medreses exist in Istanbul. As it is explained in the Chapter 1.3., all
the medreses in Turkey were registered as “monument” in accordance with the
“Monuments Law” no 1710 which is adopted in 1973 due to their “historic, art,
antiquity, scenic” values (Aşkun 1980). In addition, as the citadel of Istanbul has been
approved as historic peninsula by Istanbul 1st Council of Protection of Cultural and
Natural Assets in 1995 (decision date and no; 12.7.1995 and 6848) all the medreses
with other monumental and civil architectural heritage in historic peninsula are
bounded to conservation plan criterias.19 In 1985, four historic zones; Sultanahmet,
Süleymaniye, Zeyrek and Historic Land Walls of Istanbul have been listed as
Archaeologic and Urban Conservation Area to The World Heritage List by UNESCO
(Figure 2.3). Thus, most of the monuments in historic peninsula of Istanbul including
some of the medreses have subjected to universal attention in conservation field.

For understanding the Istanbul medreses better, reviewing change on their

organizational structures, architectural, functional and environmental characteristics,
as well as brief history of uses may be useful.

19
Historic Peninsula Conservation Plan was approved with Metropolitan Municipality Council
Decision in 04.10.2012. (IHMR)

28
Figure 2.1. Distribution of Ottoman medreses within Ottoman Territory depending
on centuries (A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999)

Figure 2.2. Locations of medreses in Istanbul in the second half of 19th century (A
Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999)

29
 3

2
4

Figure 2.3. Four World Heritage Sites in Historic Peninsula of Istanbul (KTB)

2.1. Organizational, Administrative and Legal Aspects

Medreses were important institutions of Ottoman educational system.20 They

established in Ottoman pious foundation system. In Ottoman State, a foundation was
established by a donor, as a real person, for a charitable purposes and the donor donated
both charity properties for fulfilling the main purposes and supporter properties for
financial sustainability. Foundations were established following the approval of
foundation charter by kadi.21 In foundation charters, detailed conditions were
expressed about the charity definitions, features of the members of executive board
and their organizations, assignment of administrative peoples; such as imams
muderrises and muids22 and other staff, daily fees for all responsibles, maintenance of

20
Except for medreses, education on technical and specialized fields were given in other specialised
buildings –hospital, muvakkithane, etc.- as well as Enderun in palace, civil and religious education in
primary schools, dervish lodges, palaces, houses and mosques, military education in military buildings.
(Baltaci 2005-1)
21 Kadi was the judge and the highest official representing central authority in towns. He was affiliated
to Sheyhulislam.
22
Muderrises were the master teachers in medreses equal to the professors. They were responsible for
education and administration of the medrese. In some medreses, especially founded after 16th century,
muderrises were also responsible for following the attendance of students. Muids were assistant of
muderrises. They were generally choosen among the advanced/master students staying at the medrese.

30
the building and sanctions about keeping the foundation charter’s conditions, etc.
Similarly, all the executive and educational conditions, numbers of students, their daily
fees, syllabus and the books to be studied, weekly educational calendar and off days
of the medrese, general use decisions of rooms,23 as well as use and maintenance
provisions about medreses were predefined and written in their foundation charters.
(Charter 1- 8)

After establishing a foundation, the owner of a medrese is a foundation as an entity.

The administrative body is foundation council called “mütevelli”. Central authority
also managed and control some operational facilities; such as assignments of
muderrises, their promotions, defining general annual syllabus for all medreses,
reorganizing of institutions, etc.

According to Cahit Baltaci, Ottoman medreses may be analysed in 4 categories in

terms of organization;

a) Early period Ottoman medreses (1331-1471)

b) Ottoman medreses from Sahn-ı Seman medreses to Süleymaniye medreses (1471-
1557)
c) Ottoman medreses from Süleymaniye medreses to reforms of medreses (1557-
1913)
d) Ottoman medreses from reforms of medreses to Republic period (1913-1924)

In early period, former medrese systems of Seljuks had been followed. Sultan Beyazıt
I, who established the most medreses in the whole territory with his own name
comparing the other Sultans, was first open hospital “darussifha” and Koran School
“darulkurra” as a new types of educational buildings and he invited scholars from
Egyipt first time.

The second period is the most important organizational period of Ottoman medreses.
Having built the Sahn-I Seman medreses, Fatih Sultan Mehmed releases an edict about
categorization of medreses. This categorization was made considering the daily fee of
the muderrise of a medrese.24 Because the daily fee referred to educational level of

23 In most foundation charters, numbers of students who will be stay at the rooms are decided. In some
charters, certain numbers of rooms are assigned for muderrises and other staff to stay.
24
Muderrises used to earn 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 akche per day. These Daily fees were predefined by
donor and written in foundation charters of medreses.

31
muderris25 and level of syllabus26 followed in the medrese. This edict divided medreses
into 7 level;

1- Twenties Medreses (Haşiye-I Tecrid, “Yirmili”, Medreses)

2- Thirties Medreses (Otuzlu Medreses)
3- Forties Medreses (Telvih, “Kırklı” Medreses)
4- Haric Fifties Medreses (Ellili Medreses)
5- Dahil Fifties Medreses (Ellili Medreses)
6- Sahn-I Seman Medreses
7- Sixties Medreses (Altmışlı Medreses)27

After establishing the Süleymaniye Medreses in 16th century, Süleymaniye Medreses

“Evvel, Sani, Salis, Rabi” and “Darulhadis” Medrese of Süleymaniye had been added
as two high level categories to former ones. The duration of education in Twenties and
Thirties Medreses were 2-3 years, in Forties Medreses 2 years, in Fifties, Sixties and
Sahnı Seman Medreses were 1 year.28

Starting with the second half of 16th century, administrative and educational system
began to drop down due to long lasting wars, economic decreases, rising student
population and governmental involvements. Incapable persons began to be assigned
as muderrises and some of the lectures like logic and philosophy were dropped from
the syllabuses (Baltacı 2005-1, p.150-153, Kütükoğlu 2000, p.11-13). Duration of
education were shortened so that new students could be able to attend to the medreses
(Baltacı 2005-1, p.153).

In 18th century, the categories referring to daily fee of muderrises were given up and
medrese categories were enhanced up to 12 with different descriptions. In 19th century

25
Within this period, muderrises used to be assigned a medrese after an exam. This exam used to be
held in fatih Mosque with a wide participation of scholars including Kadi, Sheyhulislam and Kazasker.
(A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999)
26
The lectures of Twenties and Thirties Medreses were “belagat, kelam and fıkıh”. In Forties Medreses
“meani and hadith” were added to these lectures. In Fifties Medreses, “fıkıh and hadith” were the
common lectures. Differently, in Haric Medreses “kelam”, in Dahil Medreses “Methodology of Fıkıh”
and “Tefsir” were also included. In Sahn-ı Seman and Sixty Medreses “fıkıh”, “methodology of fıkıh”,
“hadith” and “tefsir” were the common lectures. Differently, in Sahn-ı Seman Medreses “akaid”, in
Sixties Medreses “kelam” were also included. Exceptionally, depending on the muderris’s decision,
different lectures might be given in different medreses like “logic, ethic, mathematics and astronomy”.
(Baltacı 2005-1 p.87-88)
27
In the secon period, the only Sixties Medrese were Hagia Sophia Medrese. Even though, exceptionally
200 akche per day were given to Ali Kuşçu by Fatih Sultan Mehmet. This overpaid were used in some
other medreses laterly. (Baltacı 2005-1 p.131-135)
28
Laterly, these durations were changed and shortened. (Baltacı 2005-1 p.121-126)

32
there were also the same 12 categories but with a little change. Since 18th century,
central authority also interferes with inspection of physical and functional conditions,
as well as financing and organizing repair activities. However, the authority always
has taken into consider the conditions of foundation charters while organizing the
facilities in state level (Baltacı 2005-1).

In 19th century, Ottoman government paid an attention to establish military schools,

also established new civil schools named as “primary schools, -ilk-” and “high schools
–orta-” and they also leaved medreses to the initiatives of scholars (Baltacı 2005-1).

Ottoman education system had been revised in 1914 with effects of 19th century
reforms (Baltacı 2005-1, p.71-76). The general medreses were merged under the name
of “Darul Hilafetil Aliyye” by sheyhulislam Hayri Efendi. These medreses had 4
levels; preparatory “ihzari”, secondary “tali”, advanced “ali” and proficience
“mutehassisin”. The education was limited with 12 years. Syllabuses were also defined
by commission.29 In addition, a new proficiency medrese called “Medresetu’l-
Mutehassisin” was established in Yavuz Sultan Selim Medrese. Graduated students
from Darul Hilafeti Aliyye Medrese can attend Medresetu’l-Mutehassisin (Kütükoğlu
2000, p.13-14). Except for the reorganization of general medreses, other proficience
medreses were also established at the beginning of 20th century. These are; Medresetül
Vaizin “Medrese for Preachers” in 1912, Medresetül Eimme vel Hutaba “Medrese for
Imams and Speakers” in 1913, Medresetül Hattatin “Medrese for Calligraphs” 1914
and Medresetül Kudat “Medrese for Kadis” 1914 (Baltacı 2005-1, p.97-99).

Since the educational modernization had begun with Tanzimat Period in 1839, western
style schools started to be established and built as explained above, so medreses had
begun to lost their importance. Especially following the Islahat Fermanı, Edict of
Reforms, (announced in 1856) all the medreses investigated and revitalized in 1914,
some of those had been closed or merged due to improper physical conditions in terms

29
In preparatory level “Koran, Arabic, Turkish, History, Geography, Mathmetics, Calligraphy and
General information about religion” were the common lectures.
In secondary level “Koran, Arabic Hadith, Fıkıh, Tevhid, Logic, Philosophy, History of Islam, General
History and History of Turks, History of Ottoman, Geography, Mathmatics, Geometry, Physics,
Chemistry, Animals, Botanic, Metalurgy, Medicine, Economy and Finance, Persian, Foreign language-
English, French, German, Sport” were the lectures.
In advanced level, “tefsir, hadith, methodology of hadith, fıkıh, methodology of fıkıh, kelam, feraiz,
philosophy, ethic, law and legislation, Arabic literature” were the lectures.
Proficience level were divided into three sub categories; “tefsir- hadith”,” fıkıh”, “kelam-mysticizm-
phylosophy”. In each category, detailed lectures were included. (Baltacı 2005-1, p.91-93)

33
of health and/or maintenance (Kütükoğlu 2000). During the World War I between
1914-1918 and following Independence War between 1918-1922, most of the
medreses had already been closed due to mobilization and they have been occupied by
fire survival families, immigrants and militaries.

Following the establishment of Republic of Turkey in 1923, Union of Education Law

No 430 (RG 1924:63) has been adopted by the first parliament of Republic of Turkey
in 1924. Thus, classical educational system of Ottoman has completely been ended
and new type school buildings have begun to be built by new government. In
accordance with 1-3 articles of this law, all the science and educational institutions
were affiliated and all the rights of use of both medreses and schools were transferred
to the Ministry of Education (RG 1924:63). In 1925, the ownership of the medreses
and their lots also transferred to the same ministry in accordance with the article 4 of
Code 694 (RG 1925:256). The transferred ownership and all other rights of medreses
together with other foundation originated cultural assets were returned to the DGF in
1964 in accordance with the Code no 7044, “Aslında Vakıf Olan Tarihi Ve Mimari
Kiymeti Haiz Eski Eserlerin Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğüne Devrine Dair 7044 Sayılı
Kanun”, which was adopted in 1957.

On the other hand, foundations are private institutions which are managed by their own
administrative councils and affiliated to different imperial authorities, such as;
sadrazam, sheyhulislam and yanicheri ağas. However, since 16th century, some
foundations had begun to be managed by special central institutions.30 In 1826,
“Evkaf-I Hümayun Nezareti” was founded by Sultan Mahmud II for unification of
former administrative institutions. First, the foundations managed by Yenicheris were
affiliated to this institution. Within the time all the foundations were affiliated (Öztürk
1995). Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti was the only authority for foundations’ issues as
well as repairs (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.26). In 1921, it was closed and Law and
Foundations Ministry “Şeriyye ve Evkaf Vekaleti” was established by the first
parliament of Republic of Turkey for the same duty (Öztürk 1995).

30
The first central authority established for managing the foundations of Macca, Medina and different
locations within the whole Empire was Evkaf-ı Harameyn Nezareti. It was founded in 1586. In 1774,
Sultan Abdulhamid The First founded another administrative institution for his own foundations and
improved it. Later, Sultan Mustafa III and Sultan Mahmud II founded similar institutions for managing
their own foundations (Öztürk 1995).

34
2.2. Architectural Features

Istanbul medreses are self-standing, one storey and courtyarded masonry buildings
composed of rooms, a classroom, revaks, a courtyard and a service space. They are
also mostly symmetric buildings. The entrance and common use spaces of Istanbul
medreses -that are courtyard, eivan, revaks and classroom- are more expressed and
well decorated parts, while rooms, and service spaces are very plain.

Layout:
Istanbul medreses, like other Ottoman medreses are generally self-standing buildings
which mostly important part of a complex; such as Fatih, Süleymaniye, Sultan Ahmet,
Haseki Hurrem Sultan, etc. Some of the complex medreses share the mosques
courtyard, such as; Zal Mahmut Paşa medreses, Mihrimah Sultan Medrese in
Edirnekapı, Sokullu Medrese in Kadırga, etc. while in big complexes medreses are
secondary parts after mosques, in some small complexes medrese is the main structure
of the complex, such as; Sokullu Medrese in Eyüp, Kuyucu Murat Paşa Medrese, Koca
Sinan Paşa Medrese, Gazanfer Ağa Medrese, Nevsehirli Damat İbrahim Paşa Medrese,
etc. Meanwhile, there are some individual medreses without connecting to a complex,
such as; Ankaravi Medrese and Rüstem Paşa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.6).

Istanbul medreses are one storey buildings. However, depending on topography,

layout may be stepped (as Rabi and Salis medreses) or lower ground floor may be used
for different facilities (as Seyyid Hasan Paşa Medrese) sometimes by different owners
(as Siyavuş Paşa and Hadım Hasan Paşa medreses). The only exception is Hadim
Hasan Paşa Medrese that entrance, courtyard and service facilities with the grave of
donor were designed in ground floor, while classroom, rooms and revaks were
designed in upper floor visually connected with courtyard.

Except for some rare examples, Istanbul medreses are also masonry buildings. Timber
frame medreses are very rare and small medreses. They were constructed after big fires
for quickly repairing the damaged medreses in 19th century (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.6).

In terms of spatial potentials, Ottoman medreses in Istanbul are composed of rooms

and a classroom (Ahunbay 1994). However, in terms of architectural space
characteristics, Istanbul medreses have 4 main spatial components;

a) Entrance

35
b) Recreative or common activity space (courtyard)
c) Circulation and activity spaces (revaks)
d) Main activity spaces (rooms, classroom) (Aşkun 1980)

In addition to these, some medreses in Istanul include the eivan as a semi open main
activity space, together with classroom, such as; Sahn-ı Seman Medreses, Beyazıt
Medrese, Şehzade Medrese and Rüstem Paşa Medrese.

There are also some complementary service spaces in most medreses, like toilettes,
laundry, fountains, etc. (Ahunbay 1994).

Entrance:
Entrance is the most impressive part of medreses. It changes and affects the
psychology of the users for a different atmosphere (Aşkun 1980). There are two types
of entrances in medreses; eivan and garden gate. Entrance eivans are a module of either
rooms or revaks order within main structure, such as Sultan Ahmet and Haseki
medreses. They are generally expressed as a big portal from outer façade (Nayır 1975)
decorated with stalactites, different coloured marble coverings, profiled finishings and
inscription panels, for instance Rustem Paşa, Beyazıt and Şehzade medreses.
However, in some cases eivan entrances are very plain; for example, Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese. Second type entrances are directly open through courtyard; such as
Amcazade Hüseyin Paşa, Koca Sinan Paşa, Köprülü Mehmet Paşa, Bayram Paşa
medreses, etc. These entrances are designed as smaller and plain garden gates. In some
unique examples, garden entrances are designed as a big portal; for example, Rabi and
Salis medreses of Süleymaniye Complex.

Courtyard:
Courtyard is always open in Ottoman medrese type, as well as in Istanbul medreses
Exceptionally, Rakım Efendi Medrese31 in Karagümrük has a closed courtyard.
Courtyard is visual and recreation area (Aşkun 1980). Mostly, in the middle of
courtyard there are lead sheltered polygonal ablution fountain (Kütükoğlu 2000).

Revaks:
Revaks are the sheltered spaces between rooms and classroom. Revaks are commonly
covered with small domes in general. In early examples vaults, and in some late

31
Built after his death in1826.

36
examples, timber roof was also used in revaks. Domes are generally carried by marble
or spolio natural stone columns in Istanbul medreses. Forms of columns mostly round
shaped, but in some cases square shaped monobloc colums are used. In some rare
examples stone-bond posts is used; for example, Beyazıt Medrese, Rabi Medrese, Salis
Medrese. In some small medreses, revaks are not seen, timber structured wide eaves
are used instead; such as Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, Tetimme Medreses of Fatih Complex,
Darul Hadis Medrese of Süleymaniye Complex, etc.

Rooms:
Rooms are the private use spaces of medreses. In general, they are square planned and
approximately 9-12 sqm. Between 15th and 19th centuries, rooms are covered with
domes in Istanbul medreses. Height of the rooms are about 4-4,5 m2 from floor level
to the drum. Each room has a fireplace, one or more covered niches, open niches in
range of one to four and in some examples some small niches for lighters. Rooms have
a small door opening through the revaks or courtyard. They have two rows of windows
facing through outside. In some examples, lower windows are face through both revaks
and outside, while in some medreses face through only revaks side. Rooms are plain
spaces, there is no decoration both inside and in architectural elements. In front of the
rooms, generally timber frame sekis were in revaks (Kütükoğlu 2000). In some
medreses these sekis are masonry and they have been surviving today, such as Rabi
and Salis medreses in Süleymaniye Complex and Tabhane Medrese in Fatih Complex.

The Classroom:
Classroom is the meeting space of medreses. In general, they are square planned, dome
covered and about 100-120 sqm. In rare examples, octaconal planned classrooms were
built in Istanbul medreses. Transition elements of classrooms are generally tromp.
Classrooms are generally in the middle of axiss of courtyard, in general on the entrance
axis. In general classrooms have mihrab and in rare examples have minaret (Baltacı
2005-2). Entrances of classroom are generally decorated with coloured stones and
marble. Some of entrances have inscription panel upper parts. Classroom doors are
also well decorated woodworks, most of which kündekari in general, Window sizes
and numbers are much more than rooms. Covered niches as bookcases are typical
architectural elements of classrooms. Hand-drawn decoration inner face of the dome
and/or transition elements, coloured-glass in upper windows and woodworking
decorations on bookcase and window covers are widely used in classrooms.

37
Service Spaces:
Service spaces included toilet cabins, full ablution places (Kütükoğlu 2000), service
hall and/or service courtyard. They were designed either within the main building or
adjacent to it, but located far from rooms. In some of adjacent service space examples,
toilets open through a small service courtyard, such as; Atik Valide Medrese, while in
some examples, toilets open through a vaulted hall, such as; Şehzade Medrese. In some
medreses service space was outside of the medrese sharing with the related mosque.
However, this was not a preferable solution.32 Mostly, the height and roof of a service
space differ from the other spaces of a medrese. They are generally lower than rooms
and covered with vault or timber roof. Ventilation and illumination are obtained by
means of small and rounded top light holes in vaults. In original, there were no clean
water system in service spaces. Clean water used to be carried from well which in
courtyard or revaks. For waste water, there were cesspools in medreses (Kütükoğlu
2000). In many of examples, toilet cabins include a stepped place on one side to put
clean water pot or cleaning things.

2.3. Typology

Ottoman medrese typology bases on the first medrese examples in history by

Ghaznavids and Seljukids. It is known that Ghaznavid medreses were courtyarded
buildings surrounded with eivan and rooms (Sözen 1984). It is widely accepted that
the first examples of medrese architecture are Nizamiye Medreses. They were built by
Nizamülmülk33 around Baghdad and Khorasan around XIth century. Nizamiye
Medreses were affected with Buddhist viharas. Architecture of Nizamiye Medreses
were taken as example by the whole Islamic World (Baltacı 2005-1). Zengis built
medreses with similar layout around Syria, Eyyubis and Memluks in Egyipt, Anatolian
Seljukids in Anatolia (Sözen 1984).

Nizamiye medreses were huge and monumental buildings34 with a large and open
courtyard inside. The layout was rectangular and symmetric. There were four eivans

32
In Küçük Ayasofya Medrese, toilets were outside of the medrese, through the mosque. So, students
were complaining about this impractical use. (Kütükoğlu 2000)
33
Nizamülmülk was the famous vizier of Sultan Alparslan.
34
Nizamiye Medreses were established for ideologic reasons against considerable expansion of Shea
ideology through Islam geography. This expansion was a threat for Sunni Seljuks to keep the power of
Khilafah. The idea was to be greater spiritually and politically (Kuran 1969, p.5). Zengis followed Great
Seljuks for building medreses with the same ideologic reasons (Sözen 1984, p.14-15).

38
referring to four main madhabs, that is doctrine, of Islamic religion in the middle of
four edges, on symmetry axess.35 In 20th century, two examples have been surviving
from Nizamiye Nedreses; ruins of Hargird Nizamiye and remains of Rey Nizamiye
(Sözen 1984).

In Anatolia, architecture of Nizamiye Medreses were followed by Anatolian Seljuks

and Principalities. But symbolic four eivan was not been followed. Instead, one to four
eivans and closed mesjid were built as main spaces in medreses. Eivans were summer
classroom, closed mesjids were winter classrooms. In addition, closed courtyarded
plan type has been developed by Danishmends in 12th century with Yağıbasan
medreses in Niksar. Both open and closed courtyarded plan types were used in
Anatolia. Closed courtyarded medreses are smaller than open courtyarded Anatolian
medreses. Courtyard is covered with dome, vault or both. Top of central dome is
generally open and there is a pool under this opening. One and two storeyed Anatolian
medreses were built within both types (Sözen 1975). Revaks in open courtyarded
Anatolian medreses were only in front of rooms. Eivans are the most impressive parts
of Anatolian Medreses. Especially entrance eivans were a big and embroidered with
detailed stoneworks.

Anatolian Seljuk medreses are individual and multifunctional buildings that include
mosque/masjid, tomb, fountain and sebil (Orman 2003, İpekoğlu 2015). Tomb and
masjid, as part of multifunctional medrese building, were used in combinations of;
tomb/medrese, masjid/medrese or tomb/masjid/medrese. However, some of these
functions were planned before construction, as well as some of functions assigned after
refunctioning (İpekoğlu 2015) (Figure 2.4).

35
According to Cresswell, the remains of Hargird Nizamiye is not belong to a medrese, it belongs to a
mosque and he argued that the first four-eivan medrese was built in Kairo. However there are some
other arguments of other academicians about that the origin of four-eivan medrese is not in Kairo, it is
in Syria or Mesopotamia (Kuran 1969).

39
Figure 2.4. Anatolian Medreses showing combinations of medrese, masjid and tomb
(İpekoğlu 2015).

General plan layout of Seljuk Medreses in Anatolia affected the Anatolian

Principalities and Ottoman medrese typology (Aşkun 1980, Orman 2003). Anatolian
principalities also developed a new layout in Mardin, Kayseri and Balat. In this type,
medrese and the mosque shared the same courtyard (Orman 2003). The existing
examples of this type in 2000’s are; Hacı Kılıç Medrese (1249-1250) in Kayseri from
Danişmends, (Figure 2.5) İlyas Bey Medrese in Balat from Menteşeoğulları, built in
1404, and Şah Sultan Medrese in Mardin from Artukids, built around at the end of
15th and at the beginning of 16th centuries (Sözen 1984).

Figure 2.5. Hacı Kılıç Mosque and Medrese in Kayseri, 1249-1250 (Sözen 1984)

40
Ottoman medrese plan typology has developed in 14th and 15th centuries. They tried
both closed and open courtyarded medrese layouts, but followed the symmetrical open
courtyarded plan type of Seljuk medreses (Ahunbay 1994, Orman 2003, Günay 2002).
However, Ottoman medreses are smaller scaled, in general one-storey buildings and
entrance façades have less decoration. Eivan was widely used in early examples in
Bursa, Edirne and Amasya, as well as in Istanbul. In this examples, eivan and closed
classroom were used together in general, however in some medreses there is only eivan
or only closed classroom (Ildız 2006). In Ottoman medreses, classrooms and eivans
are always covered with dome, while revaks and rooms are sometimes covered with
vaults, sometimes with domes in early examples, such as; Muradiye Medrese in Bursa
(1425-1426). Since Saatli Medrese in Edirne, dome has been used as the main cover
of Ottoman medreses (Sözen 1984).

The first Ottoman medrese is Süleyman Bey Medrese in İznik (1332) which is
accepted as the prototype of Ottoman medrese plan type (Figure 2.6). It was the
beginning of U type individual medrese with closed classroom. The classroom, rooms
and revaks are covered with domes. The classroom is on entrance axis. However,
closed courtyarded plan type also used by Ottomans in rare examples; such as; Lala
Şahin Paşa Medrese, which was built probably in 1339 in Bursa (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Early Period courtyarded Ottoman Medreses

Ottoman medrese typology is generally shaped considering the order of rooms.

According to Ildız, two medrese plan types were used in 14th and 15th centuries in
Ottoman; U type and parallel type (Ildız 2006) (Figure 2.7.).

41
 Figure 2.7. 14th and 15th centuries Ottoman medrese typology (Ildız 2006)

The most important contribution of Mimar Sinan to medrese typology is different and
skilled layouts and space organizations on complexes (Nayır 1975, Orman 2003).
Apart from monumental “mosque centered Sultan complexes”, he also planned a
“masjid centered smaller complex”, such as Şemsi Paşa Complex in Üsküdar and a
medrese centered small complex, such as Sokullu Complex in Eyüp (Figure 2.10).
These small examples lead the 17th century complexes (Nayır 1975, Orman 2003).
Mimar Sinan also used a small corridor separating classroom from rooms in some of
his medreses, such as; Mihrimah Medrese in Üsküdar and Semiz Ali Paşa Medrese in
Fatih (Günay 2002).

In the second half of 15th century, U type self-standing medreses were widely used in
Istanbul. Following the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, Sahn-ı Seman Medreses in Fatih
Complex (1474) had been a model for further Sultan and Vizier complexes with U
plan type (Orman 2003) (Figure 2.8).

In 16th century, U plan type were widely used in medrese architecture. Mimar Sinan,
who was the most important master architect of the Ottoman Empire, used different

42
former typologies. He also developed a new plan layout interpreting the Anatolian
Principalities’ common courtyarded mosque-medrese plan type (Nayır 1975, Orman
2003). Some of these medreses have an individual classroom, while some of used the
mosque as classroom. Sinan Paşa Medrese in Beşiktaş36, Mihrimah Sultan Medrese in
Edirnekapı, Kara Ahmet Paşa Medrese in Topkapı, Zal Mahmut Paşa Medrese in
Eyup, Sokullu Medrese in Kadırga and Şemsi Paşa Medrese in Üsküdar are the
examples of this type in Istanbul (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.8. Semaniye (or Sahn-ı Seman) Medreses in Fatih Complex (Müller-Wiener
1977)

36
Sinan Paşa Medrese in Beşiktaş is the first implementation of common courtyarded mosque-medrese
layout implemented of Mimar Sinan in 1555 (Günay 2002, p.104).

43
 Figure 2.9. Sokullu Mosque and Medrese in Kadırga built by Mimar Sinan in
1571/72 (Ali Saim Ülgen)

Figure 2.10. Sokullu Medrese in Eyup, built by Mimar Sinan in 1569 (Öklü 2005).

In 17th century complexes, medrese is the central (main) building and fountain, sebil,
tomb are the complementary units of the complex. These small complex typologies
called “manzume”. 17th century complexes were constructed rather limited areas in
limited numbers and also with limited programmes as explained above. The reasons
of this that there was a rapid decrease in construction works since 17th century as the
city had almost fulled with buildings, the problems in domestic and foreign relations
of the state had begun to rise and the empire had begun to be smaller losing the wars.

44
In 18th century, individual and complex medreses were built in former plan
organizations.

As education system had begun to change in Ottoman State in 19th century, only two
small medreses were built in traditional medrese typology. The last examples are
Rakım Efendi Medrese (built by his wife on behalf of him after the death of Hattat
Rakım Efendi in 1826) and Fetva Emini Medrese in Karagümrük, Fatih. This
traditional Ottoman medrese typology was ended with the construction of Medresetül
Kuzat in 1913 (Orman 2003).

In 20th century, some of academician art historians and architects classified typology
of medreses.

The first typologic classification was made by Semavi Eyice (Ahunbay 1994). Semavi
Eyice classifies medreses considering their positions next to other related buildigs.
According to Eyice, there are 3 types of Ottoman medreses between 14th and 18th
centuries;

a) Medrese as a part of sultan complex

b) Medreses planning with a mosque (common-courtyarded medreses)
c) Individual medreses

According to Yıldız Ötüken, who is an art historian, XIV-16th century Ottoman

medreses may be categorized in two main groups having subdivisions;

Type A: Self standing medreses (either part of a complex or individual)

Type B: Medreses related with a mosque.

These two main groups are divided sub groups considering positions of classroom,
rooms, revaks and courtyard as:

Type A:
1. U plan
a) With connected classroom
b) With isolated classroom
2. Rectangular plan
a) Open courtyarded
b) Domed courtyarded
3. Octagonal plan

45
 4. L plan
5. Distorted U plan
a) With rectangular courtyard
b) With unshaped courtyard
Type B:
1. U plan
a) Open courtyarded
b) Domed courtyarded
2. L plan
3. Distorted U plan.
Type A 4, Type A 5, Type B 2 and Type B 3 are created by architect Sinan in
16th century (Ötüken 1974).
According to Zeynep Ahunbay, there are 6 types of medreses in Ottoman
architecture; (Ahunbay 1994) (Figure 2.11).
a) I type,
a. Classroom is in between rooms. (Scheme 6 in Figure 2.11)
b. Classroom is at the end of room line. (Scheme 5 in Figure
2.11)
b) Parallel type, (scheme 11 in Figure 2.11)
c) L type,
a. Individual classroom. (Scheme 1 in Figure 2.11)
b. Classroom is at the end of room line. (Scheme 2-3 in Figure
2.11)
c. Individual classroom with another individual space (scheme 4
in Figure 2.11)
d) U type,
a. Simple U / without classroom (Scheme 13 in Figure 2.11)
b. Classroom on symmetry axis opposite to rooms (Scheme 14
in Figure 2.11)
c. Classroom on symmetry axis between rooms (Scheme 15 in
Figure 2.11)
d. Classroom is at the end of room line (Scheme 16 in Figure
2.11)
e. Classroom is one of the wings of room line (Scheme 17 in
Figure 2.11)
f. Individual classroom with another individual space (Scheme
18 in Figure 2.11)

e) Rectangular type

46
 a. Individual classroom (Scheme 7 in Figure 2.11)
b. Classroom is in between rooms (Scheme 8 in Figure 2.11)
c. Classroom is in the corner (scheme 9-10 in Figure 2.11)
f) Octagonal type. (Scheme 12 in Figure 2.11)

Her classification considers order of rooms and position of classroom within rooms.
There are also some out of typology medreses, because of restrictions of lots. These
out of typology medreses are distorted forms of “L” or “U” types (Ahunbay 1994).
This classification does not take into account either position of courtyard, or being part
of a group.

Figure 2.11. Typology of Ottoman Medreses developed in 16th century (Ahunbay

1994)

2.4. Functional Features

Medreses were high education institutions in Ottoman State as second step after
primary schools. The main purpose of medrese was to educate muderrises,
governmental officials and lawyers (Bozkurt 2003). Governmental officials and most
of scholars, such as kadi, muderrris, bourocrat, kazasker and mufti were educated in
general medreses (A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999, Baltacı 2005-1,
Kütükoğlu 2000). According to educational concept and level, Ottoman medreses can
be divided into two groups; general medreses and proficience medreses (Baltacı 2005-
1). General medreses were categorized 15th century according to educational levels
(see. Chapter 2.1). Proficience medreses between 16th-19th centuries were darulhadis
–hadith medrese-, daruttıp –medicine medrese- and darulkurra –Koran medrese-.

47
Education was held four days a week in medreses. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Fridays there were no lectures (Karakök 2013).

Education methodology in Ottoman medreses followed the Abbasid and Seljuk

methodologies; during lectures, advanced students were sitting close to the muderris
in a circular or row order. They used notebooks together with lecture books with
himself during the lectures. The lectures were held repeating and/or discussing with
muderris. Sometimes lectures were held in the closest mosque for practice (Baltacı
2005-1). Informations in books were memorized by students before lectures and also
repeated to fresher student called “çömez” by old timer students called “danişmend”,
“softa” or “muid”.37

Education in a newly open medrese used to be started with an opening ceremony. The
muderrises of other equal medreses, scholars and advanced students called
“danişmend” were invited to the opening ceremonies. Ceremony used to start with a
pray, then Koran interpretation and the first lecture of the new muderris of the new
medrese. The conversations of the first lecture used to stand till lunch pray azan. After
lunch pray, the ceremony used to end with a meal given to the invitees (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Figure 2.12).

With the main education function, medreses had an accommodational function for
students who come from other cities. The students who could not find a room in the
medrese, had to stay in a khan room until they find a room (Kütükoğlu 2000).
Depending on the conditions of foundation charters, muderris and other staff38 were
allowed to stay a room (Baltacı 2005-1).

Medrese students used to do their house chores in medrese, such as; to claen the room,
to burn the fire and to light the chandelier at evenings, to clean the clothes, to cook the
meal, to bring the drinking water, etc. (Kütükoğlu 2000).

37
Fifties or sixties medreses’ old timer students called “danişmend”, lower medreses’ students called
“softa”. (Kütükoğlu 2000)
38
According to foundation charters and other archive documents, staff who work in a medrese; hafız-ı
kütüb –librarian-, abkeş, bevvab –doorkeeper-, ferraş -cleaner-, kennas-ı hela –toilet cleaner-, siraci –
oil lamp responsible-, noktacı –attendance controler-, fatihan, ihlashan, süpürgeci –cleaner-, muallim –
teacher-, kalfa, kayyım, muhafız –guard-, çöpçü –trash remover-, meremmetçi –repairer-, abrız.
(Yediyıldız 1989)

48
Every morning, two loaf of breads, called “fodla” were given to medrese residents
from imaret. In addition, every Thursday cooked rice, zerde39 and zırva40 coming from
imaret were distributed to them by a staff called “kemer”. As these foods are not
enough for students, some necessary foods, like oil and cracked wheat used to come
from their families living in their home cities so that students cook their meals. Also,
neighbor families used to send desert like foods to medrese students and invite those,
who did not go to home city, to fast breaking dinners during the month Ramadan
(Kütükoğlu 2000).

In medreses, daily fee was given to both the resident students and staff from foundation
incomes (Kütükoğlu 2000). Except for this, medreses students might earn extra money
for extra duties that defined in foundation charters; such as to pray for donor and
his/her ancestors, to read a Koran. Students also earn money fulfilling some other
defined duties for staff in foundation charters. For example, a student might be door
keeper or cleaner of medrese and earned the pre-defined daily fee for that staff
(Kütükoğlu 2000).

Figure 2.12. An illustration showing the first lecture in Gazanfer Ağa Medrese
(Kütükoğlu 2000).

39
A kind of dessert made with rice, water, honey and saffron/tummeric.
40
Dried grape, dried fig and dried appricot mix for breakfast.

49
The Rooms:
Rooms were the private spaces of medreses. In foundation deeds, rooms were assigned
for one person’s use. Students, scholars and sometimes staff were the users of rooms,
decided in the conditions of foundation deeds. Resident students were the people who
had come from other cities. They used to use rooms for both accommodation and
studying his lessons. In practice, for small rooms, generally two people used to be
allowed to stay in the same room with the permission of main user/old timer student,
“odanişin”. The second resident generally was a fresher student or a relative of old
timer student. Fresher was responsible to help old timer student for his house chores.
In retaliation, the old timer student was help fresher to learn lectures (Kütükoğlu 2000).
In larger rooms, more than two students used to stay. These students were those had
equal educational level and their freshers. Married students are never allowed to stay
at medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000). When the room resident goes home for three holy
monts, another student may stay at his room until he come back (Kütükoğlu 2000).

The niches and cupboards in the walls of rooms were for books and personal
belongings of residents (Arseven 1984).

The Classroom:
Classroom was the meeting space of inhabitants. Lectures handled by muderries or
derisams41 were carried out in the classroom (Figure 2.13). In some medreses, other
medreses’ students were also allowed to attend the lectures (Kütükoğlu 2000).

The floors of classroom were covered with rush mat and carpets on top. Each user used
to stay on the floor without shoe. Shoes were leaved out of the classroom’s door. In
the classrooms those having a mihrap, common prays and praying practices of lectures
were held (Baltacı 2005-1). In some examples, classroom was the library at the same
time having book cases as niches in walls. Students and other researchers used to use
the library for researching. In some medreses, library was another space equal to the
classroom in the same medrese, such as Nevşehirli Damat Ibrahim Paşa Medrese. If
the classroom were using as library, there were x shaped small tables to put books
while reading.

41
Free teachers allowed to give a lecture in certain places, called “dersiye”. Dersiye may be a mosque,
mesjid, house, dervish lodge or a medrese. Dersiams are also allowed to give a certificate for his lectures
until 19th century revolutions on institutional structure of medreses.

50
Figure 2.13. A miniature from "Nadiri Divanı" showing the first lecture in Gazanfer
Ağa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000)

Courtyard and Revaks:

Courtyard and revaks were circulation, recreation, refreshing, conversation and
discussion areas for students. Considering the location and decoration of ablution
fountains in courtyard, ablution was a very important activity for medrese education.
In some medreses there were no ablution fountain; so they used to get water from well
(Kütükoğlu 2000).

Wells were all the medreses whether they have an ablution fountain. In some medreses
there were more than one wells, such as Haseki Medrese. Wells may be located in the
courtyard or in revaks. In some medreses there are also cisterns, such as; Rüstem Paşa,
Rabi, Baş Kurşunlu medreses.

51
Sekis in revak, in front of rooms are another important and multifunctional elements.
They were used for conversation or private use of students. Woods for fireplace were
storeyed under the wood made sekis in winters. In summers, sekis were used for sitting
covering with carpets or rugs (Kütükoğlu 2000).

Service Spaces:
Full ablution, that is ghusl, toilets and laundry facilities were gathered in service spaces
of medreses (Kütükoğlu 2000). In service space, there were fireplace and a cauldron
to heat water both residents to clean the clothes and to get full ablution (Kütükoğlu
2000).

2.5. Contextual Features

The first Ottoman medreses in Istanbul were built within the complexes of Sultans and
their viziers. Fatih Complex is the first and the greatest complex of Istanbul with its
comprehensive functional program.42 Thus, it started a new urban design concept and
was taken as example by later Sultans who established complexes (Kuban 1994).

First Ottoman complexes in Istanbul were constructed on important locations

topographically, commercially and historically, such as; Eyup Complex in Eyup43,
Fatih Complex on ruins of Hagios Apostoloi, Beyazıt Complex on Forum Tauri,
(Müller-Wiener 1977), Mahmut Paşa Complex close to harbour and commercial area.
Fatih Medreses complex, Ishak Paşa, Davut Paşa, Mahmut Paşa, Koca Mustafa Paşa
and Murat Paşa Medreses belonged to other complexes that were established for
directing the settlement as result of state settlement policy (Ahunbay 1994). Thus, the
first Ottoman districts of Istanbul were formed around these complexes. Most of the
Ottoman districts have been kept with their names even with the borders. In 2018 57
districts exist in Fatih (Historic Peninsula); Aksaray, Akşemsettin, Alemdar, Ali
Kuşçu, Atikali, Ayvansaray, Balabanağa, Balat, Beyazıt, Binbirdirek, Cankurtaran,
Cerrahpaşa, Cibali, Demirtaş, Derviş Ali, Emin Sinan, Hacı Kadın, Haseki Sultan,

42
Within Fatih Complex, mosque, 16 medreses, “darussifha” hospital, “daruttalim” Koran school and,
“tabhane” guest house, “imaret-i amire” great group of buildings including, barns kitchens, restaurant,
khan, tomb, etc. (Kuban 1994).
43
Eyup Complex was constructed on the place where the grave of Eyup Sultan, who was one of close
friends of the prophet Muhammed and hosted him when he migrated from Macca to Medina in 612.
Following the harbinger of the prophet about conquest of ıstanbul in future by Muslims, he had came
and attempted to conquest Istanbul in VIIth century.

52
Hırka-i Şerif, Hobyar, Hoca Gıyasettin, Hocapaşa, İskenderpaşa, Kalenderhane,
Karagümrük, Katip Kasım, Kemal Paşa, Koca Mustafapaşa, Küçük Ayasofya,
Mercan, Mesihpaşa, Mevlanakapı, Mimar Hayrettin, Mimar Kemalettin, Molla Fenari,
Molla Gürani, Molla Hüsrev, Muhsine Hatun, Nişanca, Rüstempaşa, Saraç İshak,
Sarıdemir, Şehremini, Şehsuvar Bey, Seyyid Ömer, Silivrikapı, Süleymaniye, Sultan
Ahmet, Sümbül Efendi, Sururi, Tahtakale, Taya Hatun, Topkapı, Yavuz Sinan, Yavuz
Sultan Selim, Yedikule and Zeyrek (Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.14. Districts of Historic Peninsula of Istanbul- before incorporation of the

quarters Fatih and Eminönü (Conservation Plan Report, 2013)

In 16th century, complexes were built both inside and outside of historic peninsula.
However, most of them constructed on historic squares, places and axis of Byzantine
Constantin (Kuban 1994) (Figure 2.15). Yavuz Sultan Selim and Süleymaniye
complexes on two of seven panoramic hills of Istanbul. Other medreses, either
individual or in a complex, were rather constructed close to Fatih Medreses in this

53
century so that muderrises, who were assigned more than one medreses, could reach
easily (Kütükoğlu 2000).

Figure 2.15. Byzantine monuments, squares and main axess juxtaposed with 20th
century axess (Freely and Çakmak 2004)

In 16th century Fatih district become more crowded with medreses, so new medreses
were laid through Beyazıt-Edirnekapı axis, most of those within small complexes. A
new education center also developed around Süleymaniye Complex and lay down
around Divanyolu axis44 (between Sultanahmet-Beyazıt districts) (Ahunbay 1994,
Kuban 1994). In addition, new medreses were built in Aksaray-Kocamustafapaşa axis,
around Topkapı, Bayrampaşa, Tophane, Beşiktaş and Üsküdar. (Ahunbay 1994) The
Historic Peninsula, Galata and Üsküdar settlements of Istanbul was full of buildings
in this century (Figure 2.16).

44
This axis called “Divanyolu” in Ottoman Perid and “Mese” in Byzantine Period.

54
 Figure 2.16. Map of Bilad-ı Selase45 showing the name of districts and urban fabric
of Istanbul in 18th century (Kubilay, 2010)

In 17th and 18th centuries new medreses were added preferably around Fatih,
Şehzadebaşı and Divanyolu (Ahunbay 1994).

Since 15th century Fatih region, Aksaray-Kocamustafapaşa, Süleymaniye-

Şehzadebaşı and Divanyolu axis were educational areas. Şehzadebaşı was connected
to Fatih distric by a commercial-socio cultural street, called Direklerarası. Divanyolu
was also a commercial axis connecting the royal area, Topkapı Palace and Sultanahmet
to Beyazıt. Beyazıt was commercial area starting with Bedesten and then expanding
as Grand Bazaar. On Divanyolu axis there were also commercial and residential khans,
such as Simkeş Khan and Elci Khan. However, all these locations were housing areas
until the end of 19th century.

Social buildings, like mosques, medreses, khans, public fountains were masonry, but
civil buildings, like houses, rental rooms were timber frame. Social buildings were
surrounded with houses. There were small squares on junctions with a small public
fountain and mostly with a plane tree. Streets were very narrow and sometimes dead-
ended. For this reason, districts often suffer from fires starting from a timber frame
building. Fires affected the large parts of urban structure for centuries.

45 Bilad-ı Selase means Three Cities, that refers to Historic Peninsula, Galata and Üsküdar.

55
In 19th century, environment of medreses began to change. With the Edicts Period in
1839, some of urban rehabilitation works has been started.46 Burnt districs were
reorganized in grid plan, some of streets were widened for fire precaution, for tramway
lines as a new public transportation system and for multistoreyed new buildings
(Figure 2.17) (Özcan 2006). Especially the axess between Great Mosques, such as;
Divanyolu, Nur-u Osmaniye-Hagia Sophia axess, were widened in accordance with
the Regulations of Edifices of Streets “Ebniye-i Turuk Nizamnamesi” in 1863. These
widening works caused complete demolishing or cutting numbers of historic buildings,
even medreses. In spite of these changes in urban scale, historical axess and general
urban fabric surrounding the medreses were kept (Figure 2.35).

Figure 2.17. Urban Rehabilitation areas (dark parts) after urban fires showing the
situation in 1875-1876 -by Ayverdi (Özcan 2006)

46
Before Edicts Period, issues regarding urban structures were maintained by residents. Interventions
for public buildings and urban structures were managed by Master architect of Palace, “Hassa
Mimarbaşı” in foundation system and investigated by Kadis, in accordance with the ferman of Sultan.
Fermans were were given considering the both Islamic rules and social traditions. In 1845, Royal
Architect Office “Hassa Mimarlar Ocağı” were closed and Directorate of Royal Buildings “Ebniyye-i
Hassa Müdürlüğü” was established (Özcan 2006).

56
In 20th century, new urban plan works and implementations affected the environmental
structure of medreses as well as the medreses themselves. Urban Plan of Prost47, as the
first master plan of Istanbul, was the most important factor for this environmental
change in 1930’s. The main idea of Prost was “to modernisate the city expressing the
archaeologic and architectural characters of buildings without damaging the natural
characteristics of Istanbul”. In accordance his proposal, Sultanahmet area was
accepted as “Archaeologic Park” and the new buildings were limited with two storey
and to built a basement floor was prohibited. Maximum height for new buildings were
limited with the altitude 40. The plan aimed to conserve both the historic buildings and
historic silhouette while connecting different parts of the city with new and wide
streets (Figure 2.18). These new streets would also offer a deep spatial perspective in
urban scale. New metro line and tunnel were also planned connecting Galata to
Historic Peninsula. Following the proposals of Prost, Atatürk Avenue between Golden
Horn-Aksaray, Millet Avenue between Aksaray-Topkapi City Walls were opened.
Fatih was connected to Beyazıt/Laleli with widened Macar Kardeshler Street.
Divanyolu and some other streets were widened. Galata Bridge was shiftet and the
connected to Ataturk Bridge with a new and wide avenue parallel to Golden Horn.
These streets and avenues would also support the commertial character of Beyazıt-
Eminönü area. Close environment of monumental complexes, such as Eyup, Beyazıt
and Valide mosques, were opened with large expropriation works, so that the
monuments could be able to perceived well. These resulted in destroying plenty of
historic monuments, including medreses. Some areas were also designed as public
green areas, like; Gulhane Park and the area around the river line between Fatih and
Haseki districts, green park lines outside of historic city walls both on land and
Marmara Sea sides. Similar changes were also applied in Beyoglu side (Angel 1987).

47
Prost was invited by Ataturk in 1934 to prepare a master plan and urban plan of Istanbul when he was
the “Head of Planning Committe of Paris Region” (Angel 1987).

57
Figure 2.18. New axes planned to be open within historic fabric of Istanbul in Urban
Plan of Henry Prost (Arkitera)

In 2016, the effects of Prost’s master plan and implementations were still continuing
in Istanbul. Vatan Avenue was opened on the river bed between Fatih and Haseki
quarters and Millet Street is opened on Haseki-Davutpaşa quarters. Atatürk Avenue
was opened between Süleymaniye and Zeyrek hills. Ordu Street was opened
connecting Beyazıt quarter to Aksaray. Akdeniz and Kızılelma streets were opened
connecting Fatih quarter to Haseki and Yedikule. Fevzi Paşa Street is opened enlarged
the historical axis between Beyazıt and Edirnekapı. Urban fabric has been changed in
considerable parts of Historic Peninsula, especially in Fatih and Kocamustafapaşa
quarters (Figure 2.36). These urban revitalisations caused demolishing or change
numbers of historical buildings, as well as medreses. The first metro line was also
constructed underline of the Vatan Avenue in 1989. Beyoğlu metro line and Uskudar-
Kadikoy line, called Marmaray, were added within 2010’s (Figure 2.19). Multi
storeyed apartments, public or governmental buildings, hotels, hospital and shopping
center were built on both sides of the avenues. Some of those give a damage both to

58
silhouette and historic fabric with their scales and heights (Figures 2.20 and 2.21). This
irregular and dense construction was resulted in a considerable rise on rental value of
the area (Conservation Plan Report 2003). However, in order to solve this problem,
general values for immovables has been decided in Conservation Plan of Historic
Peninsula by using Urban Design Guidelines (Conservation Plan Report 2003).

Figure 2.19. Railways and underground lines on Historic Peninsula. (Süperaktif)

Traffic roads, public transportation and pedestrianized areas also regulated considering
the historic, natural and architectural characteristics of Historic Peninsula. According
to Conservation Plan Report of Historic Peninsula, lots of historic streets, especially
around Sultanahmet, Süleymaniye, Grand Bazaar, Eminönü and Topkapi Palace are
pedestrianized.

59
 Figure 2.20. Süleymaniye from Galata Figure 2.21. Süleymaniye from Galata
Tower in 19th century. (Fatih Tower in 2016. (Private Archive of
Conservation Plan Report 2003) Zübeyde Cihan Özsayıner)

In 2016, facilities were generally nested in the Historic Peninsula. (Figure 2.37)
Eminönü region was dencely facilitated with commercial, accomodational and
housing uses. Divanyolu, Süleymaniye and Sultanahmet were social-cultural and
touristic areas. Especially most of historic buildings, including medreses were serving
with cultural uses (Figure 2.38), while some of were used for education. Green and
recreative areas were around Topkapi Palace and throughout shores surrounding these
facilities (Figure 2.37).

Fatih region was using mostly for housing. There were also small workshops and
storages in housing areas. Commercial, social and educational areas were rather
smaller and interspersed within housing. Great health and administrative complexes
were located throughout the new avenues (Figures 2.22 and 2.23) (Conservation Plan
Report 2003).

60
 Figure 2.22. Hospital complexes in Fatih Figure 2.23. Great administrative
region (Conservation Plan Report 2003) complex buildings in Fatih region
(Conservation Plan Report 2003)

All the medreses were legended as cultural facility in Urban Conservation Plan of
Eminönü and Fatih regions, as well as the ones outside of the peninsula.

In conclusion, Istanbul has been supposed to very dense uses since Byzantine Period.
In Ottoman Period, the city was reorganized with complexes. Districts had growth
around these complexes. However, main axess, commercial zones and general
distribution of facilities of Byzantine Period were kept. Great parts of urban structure
were affected numbers of fires during the Ottoman Period until the 20th century. For
this reason, since 19th century, modernization and rehabilitation works had been
started with the effect of western approaches both in urban scale and building scale.
New public transportation, new buildings and widened streets for fire precaution
started to change the general structure of the city. Especially in Republic Period, main
zones and axess of the city was radically changed with the first master plan which
prepared by Prost. Monumental buildings, historic-architectural-archaeologic features
of Istanbul were emphasized, however many of historic building have been destroyed
with this plan and the environments of those have been changed. Some of medreses
have also lost their original environments. With rental reasons and rising population,
many of buildings around medreses have been heightened. New and great buildings
were added in the historic fabric for social and touristic needs. Some of historic houses
in historic districs changed as boutique hotels and touristic shops.

61
2.6. Review of Existing Medreses

According to Zekeriya Kurşun, 78 medreses were still existed in historic peninsula of

Istanbul in 2010’s (Kurşun vd. 2008).

In this study, depending on archive registrations of DGF and other literature sources,
212 medreses were determined in Istanbul in 2015. 86 of those were existing with a
new function, 127 of those were demolished both due to fires at the beginning of 20th
century and due to being abandoned for a long time (Table 2.2). The main reasons of
being abandoned are the First World War between 1914-1918, the Turkish War of
Independence between 1918-1922 and the reform in the education system done in
1924.

According to Table 2.2, most of the demolished medreses were rather small scaled
medreses and most of those in private ownership. Another considerable point is that,
most of demolished small medreses were around Çarşamba, Nişanca and Karagümrük
districts, that is around Fatih Complex. There were some moderate scale medreses with
11-16 rooms that could not being survived, such as; Nişancı Mehmet Paşa (Çukur)
Medrese in Çarşamba, Şeyh Ebu'l Vefa Medrese in Vefa, Hüseyniye Medrese in Sinan
Ağa District, Murat Paşa Medrese in Murat Paşa District, Kalenderhane Medrese and
Ebulfazl Mahmut Efendi Medrese in Kalenderhane District, Kayış Mustafa Ağa
Medrerse in Hocapaşa District, Şah Kulu Medrese in Beyazıt Quarter, İbrahim Paşa-
yı Atik Medrese in Uzunçarşıbaşı Quarter, Valide Sultan Medrese in Çarşamba
Quarter, Süleyman Subaşı Medrese in Süleymaniye Quarter. There were also some big
medreses having more than 16 rooms could not survive, such as; Mahmut Paşa
Medrese of Mahmut Paşa Complex in Mahmutpaşa District, Abdülgaffar Efendi
Medrese in Karagümrük Quarter, Pir Mehmed Paşa Medrese in Vefa District and
Yahya Efendi Medrese in Çarşamba Quarter. The biggest medrese with 28 rooms was
Papaszade Mustafa Çelebi Medrese from 1542 in Laleli Quarter, however, it was not
existed in 2015.

According to Table 2.2, which is derivated from Table 2.1, most of the existing big
and moderate medreses were part of great complexes. It is a considerable fact seen in
the Table 2.2 that 24 of 29 big scaled existing medreses had a complex. Another
considerable data was that stand-alone medreses were rather small and moderate
scaled. Among the big scaled medreses; only 2 of 29 were stand-alone. According to

62
Figure 2.24, derivated from Table 2.2, existing medreses in Istanbul were rather
moderate and big scaled, as 38% of big and 28% of moderate. Besides, 53% of existing
medreses were part of great complexes (Figure 2.25).

Table 2.2. Sizes of Existing Medreses in Istanbul, in 2015

CONSIDERING ROOM NUMBERS
Small (5-10 Moderate (11- Big (17-24
APPROXIMATE SIZES OF EXISTING grand total
rooms) 16 rooms) rooms)
MEDRESES
Total Numbers of Medreses 24 33 29 86

Part of a Great Complex (Külliye) 7 15 24 46

Part of a Small Complex (Manzume) 9 10 3 22

Individual 8 8 2 18

Figure 2.24. Percantages of sizes of Figure 2.25. Percantages of existing

existing medreses in Istanbul medreses considering their programs

According to Table 2.3, which was derivated from Table 2.1, approximately 50% of
existing medreses, that is 39 medreses, were from 16th century. There were 16
medreses from 18th and 18 medreses from 15th centuries. 17th and 19th century
exisiting medreses were very limited. In 15th century, manzume and stand-alone
medreses were not exist. Stand-alone medreses were mostly constructed in 16th
century, as 10 medreses. After 16th century, a few stand-alone medreses were built.
As there was no great complex constructed in 19th century, there was no existing great
complex medrese from this century.

63
 Table 2.3. Distribution of Existing Medreses Through Centuries

Distribution of medreses through periods 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. grand total

Total Numbers of Medreses 18 39 9 17 3 86

Part of a Great Complex (Külliye) 18 22 3 3 0 46

Part of a Small Complex (Manzume) 0 7 5 9 1 22

Individual 0 10 1 5 2 18

In 2015, most of exisiting medreses in Istanbul were from 16th century great complex
medreses as 22 in total. 15th century great complex medreses follows those as 18 in
total. 16th century stand-alone medreses, almost 25% of that period as 10 medreses
(Figure 2.26).

15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c.

Figure 2.26. Distribution of numbers of existing medreses on both centuries and their
programs

In 2015, 69 of 86 existing medreses were used with new facilities, 17 of them were
empty, derelict or under restoration (Table 2.5). 24 of the existing medreses had been
refunctioned or rehabilitated for new function between 2000-2015. These medreses
were; Sultanahmet, Rüstem Paşa, Hacı Beşir Ağa (in Cağaloğlu), Hadım Hasan Paşa,
Beyazıt, Koca Sinan Paşa, Atik Ali Paşa, Nuruosmaniye, Rabi, Darülhadis (in
Süleymaniye Complex), Siyavuş Paşa, Ekmekçizade, Şehzade, Karadeniz Baş
Kurşunlu, Karadeniz Çifte Baş Kurşunlu, Karadeniz Çifte Ayak Kurşunlu, Karadeniz
Ayak Kurşunlu, Tabhane (in Fatih Complex), Mihrimah Sultan (in Edirnekapı), Hadım

64
İbrahim Paşa, Gevherhan Sultan, Haseki, Hacı Beşir Ağa (in Eyüp) and Kılıç Ali Paşa
medreses (Figure 2.38).

There was also a rising tendency to reconstruction of certain demolished medreses in

2000’s by metropolitan municipality. According to Istanbul Historic Peninsula Urban
Conservation Plan Report, 22 of demolished medreses were going to be reconstructed
for new uses48 (Table 2.1). In addition to these demolished medreses, Muid Ahmed
Efendi Medrese, which was in a very poor condition and partially used by an
association, was also going to be reconstructed by metropolitan municipality.
According to Table 2.1, common features of these medreses were being in private or
municipality ownership, but Ayasofya Medrese in Sultanahmet and Defterdar İbrahim
Paşa (or Defterdar İbrahim Ağa) Medrese in Edirnekapı. Both medreses were belong
to DGF.

Existing medreses were used rather with cultural, educational, or mixed uses including
cultural-educational-social-art facilities in 2000’s. In addition, existing medreses had
been using for accommodational, commercial and health facilities (Figure 2.40).
According to Figure 2.40, the most preferred function for medreses was “cultural” and
mixed cultural uses with 36% in total. The second widely used function was
“education” with 21%. Main facilities that were analysed in Table 2.5 and the sub
division of uses with percentages of these facilities seen in Figure 2.40 were as follow;

Educational (21%); Quran course, library, education center, primary school.

Cultural (14%); Museum, administrative and cultural center (of user establishment),
cultural center, traditional army bands activities, academic research center.

Cultural-Social-Educational-Fine Arts (9%); Headquarter of new foundations (as

user), traditional handicrafts course center, Istanbul arts bazaar (including training
activities), traditional handmade Eyüp toys producing project workshops, traditional
army bands activities.

Cultural-Fine Arts (8%); Culture and art center, foundation administrative center
(including some traditional art courses).

Accommodational (8%); Housing, dormitory, guest house.

48
This decision was withdrowed by the board decision no 1199 “1/5000 ölçekli Fatih İlçesi (Tarihi
Yarımada) 1. Derece Arkeolojik, Kentsel Tarihi Sit Alanları KANİP Plan Notu değişikliği” approved in
18 Kasım 2020.

65
Educational-Cultural (5%); Education and cultural center, research center.

Health (5%); village clinic, health center, policlinic.

Commercial (3%); Stock-market, touristic café & shops, carpenter’s workshop.

Social (2%); Social center, club center, social-administrative center.

Others (5%); Archive storage, masjid, unknown.

In the same table the range of unused medreses was 20%.

Medreses are mainly used by NGO’s, in percentages of 62%, for cultural, social and
educational purposes (Figures 41 and 42). The “other” use by NGO’s covers the
administrative uses supporting their main activities.

According to Table 2.1, some of these functions had been assigned to the medreses
within the last 10 years, since beginning of 2000’s, while some of those had been
surviving more than 30, 40 or 50 years in 2015. For example; the stock market use of
Hamidiye Medrese, as “Borsa Istanbul” had been kept for 89 years. Evvel and Sani
medreses of Süleymaniye Complex, as the most important manuscript library of
Turkey, had been kept the function library for more than 50 years. Museum function
of Beyazıt Medrese was for 32 years, cultural and art center function of Koprülü
Mehmet Paşa Medrese was for 31 years. Stock-market, primary school, cultural center,
health center, museum, library and Koran course functions, particularly library and
Koran course facilities in medreses were considerably long-running uses about 30-50
or more years.

The longest-running new facility in medreses was the function “library”, as long as 99
years, in Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi Medrese (Figures 2.27 and 2.28). The medrese
was composed of a classroom, a library and 10 rooms. It is constructed by Şeyhülislam
Feyzullah Efendi and kept his manuscript collection in library section. At the
beginning of 20th century, 200 years after it was built, it was derelict and almost in
ruins. Then, the municipality had planned to demolish the medrese in order to design
a park. However, it was restored by Istanbul Muhibleri Association in 1916 with the
encouragement of the Minister of Foundations Şeyhülislam Mustafa Hayri Efendi.
Between 1916 and 2015, the medrese was using as a public library, known as Millet
Library (Uluçam 1995, Tayşi and Ülker 2005). In 1999 Marmara Earthquake the

66
medrese was damaged and the books have been transferred to the Beyazıt Manuscripts
Library until restoration was completed (Tayşi and Ülker 2005).

Figure 2.27. Plan of Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi Medrese (Uluçam 1995)

Figure 2.28. Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi Medrese, as Millet Library in 2017

Primary school use was also one of the long-running uses in medreses according to
Table 2.1, however, there was almost nothing remained from that medreses used with
this function in 2015. For example; Malülzade (İncirli) Medrese in Fatih was a small
medrese having 7 rooms. It was constructed in 1582. According to archive registrations
of DGF, the ownership of the medrese was transferred to the Istanbul Metropolitan
Municipality in 1924. Due to need of primary school building, it was transferred to the
Ministry of Education in 1935 and refunctioned as a primary school. Within the time,
Malülzade Medrese had completely been changed with interventions. In 2015, it was
known as Nişancı Mehmet Paşa Primary School. However, it was registered in

67
electronic data base of General Directorate of Foundations, EVOS, as Malülzade
Medrese.

According to Table 2.1, cultural center facility was another long-running new use for
medreses. In some examples, the name of the function became more popular the name
of the medrese. For instance; the name “Kubbealtı Academy”, as a 31year cultural and
traditional art center, was more famous than the name of Köprülü Mehmet Paşa
Medrese in 2015. Some of important illumination artists had educated in this medrese.
Revak section was intervented for illumination lectures and rooms were used for
administrative and service necessities (Figures 2.29 and 2.30). Köprülü Mehmet Paşa
Medrese was located on Divanyolu Street. Seyit Hasan Paşa Medrese had been using
for 25 years for cultural activities by Istanbul University, Euresia Institute. The
medrese was located at Vezneciler, which was a district very close to Istanbul
University. The courtyard was the main space using for the main activities, like
seminars and international meetings, while the rooms were using as offices,
administrative facilities and service spaces (Figure 2.31).

Figure 2.29. Revak section of Figure 2.30. Entrance of Köprülü Mehmet Paşa
Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese. Medrese from courtyard. 2011
2011

68
 Figure 2.31. Courtyard of Seyit Hasan Paşa Medrese. 2011

Commercial use was the least assigned function to medreses. According to Table 2.5,
only 3 medreses were using with this function in 2015; Hamidiye Medrese as stock
market, Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese as carpentry workshop and Çorlulu Ali Paşa
Medrese as hookah café and club. In order to understand the reason for the choice of
the function, a slight review on the ownership, the context, the layout and the typology
of the medreses may be helpful.

According to Table 2.1, three of these medreses were owned by different bodies;
Çorlulu Ali Paşa Medrese was owned by a municipality, Hamidiye Medrese was
owned by Istanbul Commodity Exchange and Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese was
owned by DGF. In addition to this, the medreses had different contexts; Hamidiye
Medrese was in Eminönü and very close to both touristic and historical trade center of
Istanbul; Çorlulu Ali Paşa Medrese was on Yeniçeriler Street which was continue of
Divanyolu Street as the most active pedestrianized tourist axis of Historic Peninsula;
Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese was in second degree commercial area of
Süleymaniye district and close to Golden Horn (Fatih Conservation Plan Report 2003),
(Figure 2.38). Layouts, spatial capacities and typologies of these medreses were also
different; Hamidiye Medrese had 20 rooms in rectangular plan, Çorlulu Ali Paşa
Medrese had 8 rooms in I plan type, while Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese had 11
rooms in L plan type (Kütükoğlu 2000). Thus, it was understood that the context had
stronger effect on refunctioning then ownership and layout.
69
Contemporary users of existing medreses are vary; non-governmental organisations
(NGO’s; that is associations and new foundations), governmental organisations
(ministries, religious affairs’ institutions and DGF), municipalities, universities and
the private sector. As it was mentioned above, 69 of existing medreses were actively
used in 2015 (Table 2.5). 17 medreses are either empty, or in restoration/
refunctioning/rehabilitation process (Table 2.4). According to Table 2.6 and Figure
2.36, 43 of 69 medreses (62%) were using by non-governmental organisations, that is
contemporary foundations and associations. 18 medreses (26%) were using by
governmental institutions. Municipalities were using only 4 existing medreses of
which owner was DGF.

According to Table 2.6, Non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) mostly prefered to

use medreses for cultural activities, however, cultural uses were generally mixed with
administrative, art and educational uses. 5 medreses used only for “cultural” purposes
by non-governmental organisations. According to Table 2.1, these were; Kızlarağası
Medrese, Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Paşa Medrese and Ankaravi Mehmet Efendi
Medrese as cultural center, Siyavuş Paşa Medrese as museum and Valide Sultan
Medrese as cultural research center. These medreses were mostly around Şehzadebaşı
and Cağaloğlu districts. According to Table 2.5, 8 of medreses were using with mixed
“social-cultural-educational-fine arts and administrative” center by NGO’s. These
medreses were; Sultan Ahmet, Rüstem Paşa, Hacı Beşir Ağa (in Cağaloğlu), Hadım
Hasan Paşa, Koca Sinan Paşa, Atik Ali Paşa, Hadım İbrahim Paşa and Hacı Beşir Ağa
(in Eyüp) medreses. These medreses were mostly located around Sultanahmet,
Cağaloğlu and Divanyolu quarters.

Governmental organisations as medrese users were; Prime Ministry, Ministry of

Culture and Tourism, Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Health, Presidency
of Religious Affairs, Directorate General of Foundations (DGF) and mufti offices of
Fatih and Üsküdar (Table 2.1). Governmental organisations were mostly used
medreses for educational activities and for cultural facilities (Figure 2.38). 11 of 18
medreses were using for education in 2015. Governmental organisations did not prefer
to use medreses for social purposes or mixed cultural uses (Table 2.5).

Municipalities used medreses for either cultural or cultural-fine arts activities. (Table
2.6 and Figure 2.38)

70
Universities prefered to use medreses either for cultural or educational purposes.
According to Table 2.1 and Table 2.6, only two medreses were used by the Istanbul
University; Kuyucu Murat Paşa Medrese as Fine Arts Department and Seyit Hasan
Paşa Medrese as Avrasya Institute. The first one was evaluated as educational, the
second one as cultural (Figure 2.38). Both medreses were in Beyazıt district where
most of Istanbul University departments are located. On the other hand, both medreses
under the official ownership, in other words being a part of state; Kuyucu Murat Paşa
was belong to DGF and Seyit Hasan Paşa belonged to the municipality. It was
understood that the universities used medreses for both as a close building stock nearby
themselves, and due to ease of transfer for reusing between different state bodies as
owners and users.

Only two medreses were used by private sector in 2015; Mihrimah Sultan Medrese in
Üsküdar as health center and Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese in Süleymaniye as
carpentry workshop. Although the location of Mihrimah Sultan Medrese was very
central, commercial and touristic, the elevated position relative to the street level was
probably the main reason for the choice of new function. On the other hand, the context
of Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese affected the choice of reuse of the medrese without
being considered its significance. Reuse decision of the heritage building was seemed
to had been taken only to protect the medrese from being non-functional.

Site survey on the medreses in Istanbul between 2010-2015 showed that, refunctioned
medreses either had needed considerable structural repair for renewing process or they
had been considerably deteriorated due to long lasting occupations, changing
functional needs and lack of maintenance (for example Beyazıt Medrese and Atik Ali
Paşa Medrese). Structural needs were seen in the form of partially demolishing (for
example Siyavuş Paşa Medrese and Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese) (Figures 2.32 and
2.33) and advanced structural problems (for example; Akdeniz Medreses and Tabhane
Medrese of Fatih Complex and Davut Paşa Medrese) (Figure 2.34). In some medreses,
it was observed some exceptional remains of past interventions referring to historical
interventions that were understood from some written and visual archive documents
(for example Hacı Beşir Ağa Medrese) (Figure 2.35).

71
Figure 2.32. Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese before refunctioning. 2005 (archive of
DGF)

Figure 2.33. Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese after refunctioning. 2015

72
 Figure 2.34. Structural craks on Tabhane Medrese in Fatih Complex. 2016

Figure 2.35. Ground and upper floor divisions and staircase of a room in Haci Beşir
Ağa Medrese, 2011

2.7. An Assessment

Medrese was the most important educational institution in Ottoman Period. Ottoman
took example the medrese system from Seljuks in terms of both institutional and

73
educational. As organizational structure, medreses were the part of Waqf system.
Medreses, like all waqfs were managed by autonomous waqf council. However, there
had been different state authorities controlling the council until 19th century. Between
1864 and 1924 medreses were controlling by a central authority; Şeriyye ve Evkaf
Nezareti (Ministry of Law and Foundations). In Republic period, medreses had been
belonged to Ministry of Education since 1924 and 1925, till 1964. Between 1924 and
1964 numbers of medreses had being used by Ministry of Education, municipalities
and occupied by families for housing. Some of medreses had being sold within this
period. Since 1964, Directorate General of Foundations had become the owner and
responsible institution from medreses, as well as other Seljuk and Ottoman foundation
properties.

Medreses are courtyarded buildings since from the first examples built by Ghaznavids
and Karahanids in 10th century in Khorasan. They were courtyarded buildings
surrounded with small rooms repeating the ancient Budhist monasteries layout. None
of them has been surviving today. The layout was developed by Great Seljuks in XIth
century in Transoxania with the name of Nizamiye and adopted by other Islamic states
interpreting in different geographies; Arabic Peninsula, Egyipt and Anatolia.
Nizamiyes were monumental and open courtyarded, individual medreses with four
eivans and rooms. In 21th century, two ruins of Nizamiyes have been surviving.
Anatolian Medreses are developed by Anatolian Seljuks and Principalities between
XIth-13th centuries. They are rather smaller buildings then Nizamiyes. Anatolian
medreses are both open and closed courtyarded buildings with one or two storeyed.
Entrances are big portals and eivans were used for common lectures. Mesjid and tomb
are widely used spaces in Anatolian medrese layout.

Ottomans followed open courtyarded plan typology of Anatolian Seljuks and

interpreted their plan schemes. Although, the Ottomans continued the Seljuk
medreses’ plan layout, Ottoman medrese typology had being developed as a
characteristic building type between 14th and 16th centuries and it was completely
different from the Seljuk medrese typology in terms of their scale and functional
layout. Ottoman medreses were generally one storey buildings composed of a
classroom, rooms, revaks, a courtyard and a service space. Some of medreses were
part of great or small scaled complexes (külliye or manzume), while some of medreses

74
were individual buildings. Some medreses that were part of complex were shared the
same courtyard with the mosque, as the mosque was the classroom of these medreses.

Especially in 16th century, classical Ottoman Medrese typology has been developed
with varieties and used till 19th century when new type proficiency medreses had
started to be built as results of educational revolution. In Istanbul, almost all medrese
plan types can be seen. Either general or proficiency medreses, they were used for both
education as the main function and for accommodation. So, all the personal needs were
fulfilling in medreses. In Sultan and vizier medreses, that have large income, different
staff were assigned for some services. However, in smaller medreses, users were
managing general daily chores and muderrises held student affairs.

There are also variety of typologic approaches about medreses. However, the main
approach considers the positioning of rooms, classroom. Except for this, some
typologies emphasize the positioning of revaks and courtyard, closer connections with
related buildings and being part of a group of building.

Istanbul medreses are self-standing, one storey and courtyarded masonry buildings
composed of rooms, a classroom, revaks, a courtyard and a service space. In general,
medreses are symmetric buildings. The entrance and the classroom are on symmetry
axis, or on different/perpendicular symmetry axess. In Istanbul medreses, the entrance,
and common use spaces -courtyard, eivan, revaks and classroom- are expressed and
well decorated parts, while rooms, and service spaces are very plain. Rooms and
classroom are the main spaces that covered with domes. Rooms are very small, mostly
squared spaces. The only decoration in rooms, kündekari wood made window covers,
doors and stucco fireplace veils. Classrooms are larger spaces and always higher than
revak/courtyard level in front of it. Mostly there is a mihrab inside. Classrooms are
decorated with geometry of transition elements, hand paints, bookcase covers and
coloured glasses. Entrance of the classroom are also decorated with coloured stones
and/or inscription pannels. Classroom and rooms are generally paved with hexagonal
brick. Revaks are semi open spaces covered with domes which are carried by bounded
stone posts or stone columns with decorated capitals. Main walls are mostly made of
cut stone, sometimes alternate brick and stone. Revaks are covered with hexagonal
brick in most cases, however in some examples stone pavement were used. Revak
walls of rooms, inner faces of domes and all inner spaces are generally plastered.
Domes and vaults are covered with lead. Courtyards are generally natural earth with

75
planting, such as; Beyazıt, Haseki, Gazi Atik Ali Paşa medreses and mostly include an
ablution fountain in the middle. Connection axess with ablution fountain were covered
with stone in these cases. There are also completely stone paved courtyards in some
medreses, such as; Şehzade Medrese, Tabhane Medrese in Fatih Complex, Rüstem
Paşa Medrese. Lower windows of both rooms and classroom are always kept by
traditional metal fancing called “lokmalı”. Service spaces are within or adjacent to the
medrese. Service spaces either directly open towards a service backyard or connected
these spaces via a hall.

Rooms were private spaces assigned for accommodation of old-timer students, so a

room owner student have some rights on use of the room. Students had daily meals
given by foundation in rooms. They also used their rooms for cooking extra meals.
Classroom were used as lecture hall, sometimes as masjid and library. It was also open
to students to study. Lectures may be given both by muderris of the medrese and other
allowed teachers for his personal lectures. In some medreses, lectures were open to
other medreses’ students’ attendance. Revaks were using for multifunctional purposes;
circulation, resting, studying, communication. Even though for wood storage. For this
reason, wood made sekis were in revaks. Courtyard were mainly used for ablution,
getting fresh air and communication. Service space for the cleaning facilities needed
both cold and hot water, such as; full ablution/bath, laundry and toilet. In medreses
users were sitting on the floor. So, floors were covered with raw mat and carpets.

With the Tanzimat Period, Ottoman medreses began to lose their functions parallel
with the changing educational system. The World War I and the Independence War
accelerated the dereliction of the medreses. Finally, medrese education had completely
been ended in 1924, with the coming into force of Tevhid-i Tedrisat Law.

Within the time, medreses had been deteriorated physically, environmentally,

economically and functionally for different reasons (Aşkun, 1980). Until 1960’s, most
of abandoned medreses had being occupied by poor families, some of those reused as
primary school by Ministry of Education, as library or museum by municipality, as
social and cultural center, as Koran school by associations. Considerable numbers of
medreses had been demolished within this period. Starting with 1960’s, medreses had
preferably been turned into dormitories for university students.

76
The medreses located around Fatih Complex were using mostly as Quran school and
dormitory. Both facilities were relatively long term uses about for 50 or more years.
The medreses locations of which close to Istanbul University were mostly used as
cultural, educational and research center by the university. The medreses located
around touristic centers and axes, like Sultanahmet, Cağaloğlu and Divanyolu, were
mostly used by associations as cultural and art center, especially for traditional fine
arts courses and workshops about for last 20-25 years. However, in many of medreses,
especially the ones used by associations, administrative, social, educational and
cultural functions took place together. On the other hand, the medreses of Süleymaniye
Complex, as located in one of the most touristic centers of Historical Peninsula, were
used for very specialized functions; manuscript library and academic research center.

Existing Ottoman medreses in Istanbul were generally moderate and big medreses
having 11-16 or 17-24 rooms and they were mostly part of a complex. Size of the
medrese or numbers of room was not so effective for functional preference. As they
were mostly one storey buildings, except for Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese and partially
Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, the number of storeys had also no effect on general reuse
decision. The effect of typology on refunctioning of Istanbul medreses seemed also
not effective. To understand the effect of typology on refunctioning, it was needed to
be studied in detail; because the whole Istanbul medreses were open courtyarded and
the reasons of functional preference between being shared courtyarded and being stand
alone may be clear by means of a further survey on medreses.

Most of the existing medreses were owned by Directorate General of Foundations.

However only one medrese, Beyazıt Medrese, was directly used by the owner; as a
museum for about 30 years. Others were assigned to other governmental or non-
governmental organizations, municipalities and universities.

Since the beginning of 2000’s, a considerable refunctioning and rehabilitation works

on medreses had been continued by 2015. Some of those rehabilitations also included
reintegration works; such as Hadım Hasan Paşa and Hadım İbrahim Paşa medreses.
Furthermore, there was a tendence to reconstruction of not existed medreses in
conservation plan decisions taken by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. These
medreses were mostly owned by municipalities or private sector. This demonstrated
that ownership by a decision maker body had a strong effect on refunctioning, or
reconstruction or revitalization of medreses in 2000’s.

77
78
Figure 2.36. Existing Medreses in Historic Peninsula of Istanbul, 2015 – Juxtaposed on Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi Maps (1875-1882)

79
Figure 2.37. Existing Medreses in Istanbul, 2015 on Google Map.

80
CULTURAL
EDIFICIES

Figure 2.38. Existing Medreses in Conservation Plan

81
CULTURAL
EDIFICIES

Figure 2.39. Existing and Refunctioned Medreses in 2015 Juxtaposed on Cultural Functions in Conservation Plan

82
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015
CURRENT SITUATION AND FUNCTIONS OF ISTANBUL MEDRESES IN 2015
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
Cultural-Educational-Art-
Sultanahmet 1619 (Kurşun Sedefkar Mehmed DGF Sultanahmet
1 Sultanahmet (EVOS) Sultanahmet Medrese (EVOS) 99/29 (TKGM) 24 (EVOS) Administrative (foundation 3 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) Foundation
headquarter)
Educational-Cultural-Art
Türkiye Turing ve
Cankurtaran Cedid Mehmed Efendi (Kabasakal) 1705 (Kurşun Mehmed Ağa? Municipality 12 (Kurşun (İstanbul Sanatları Çarşısı / 31 (Kütükoğlu
2 Sultanahmet (EVOS) 63/8 (TKGM) Otomobil Kurumu 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Istanbul Handicrafts 2000)
(Kurşun 2008)
Bazaar) (Kurşun 2008)
Art-Educational
(Uygulamalı El Sanatları Türk Kültürüne
Cankurtaran Cafer Ağa (Soğukkuyu) Medrese 1557 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 16 (Kurşun 26 (Kurşun
3 Sultanahmet (EVOS) 52/20 (TKGM) Merkezi / Practical Hizmet Vakfı 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
Handicrafts Center) (Kurşun 2008)
(Kurşun 2008)
Istanbul
Istanbul 20 (Kurşun
Commodity
Hamidiye (Sultan Abdülhamid Han) 1780 (Kurşun Commodity 2008) Stock Market (Kurşun 89 (Kurşun
4 Hobyar (TKGM) Bahçekapı (EVOS) 417/9 (TKGM) ? Exchange / İstanbul 1
Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Exchange [21(Kütükoğlu 2008) 2008)
Ticaret Borsası
(ICE) 2000)]
(Kurşun 2008)
İstanbul İlim
Social-Cultural-
Kültür Vakfı /
1550 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 22 (Kurşun Administrative
5 Sururi (TKGM) Cağaloğlu (EVOS) Rüstem Paşa Medrese (EVOS) 3000/19 (TKGM) 6 (EVOS) Istanbul Science 1
2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Foundation headquarter
and Culture
and museum)
Foundation
Acı Musluk (İbrahim Paşa) Medrese >1717 (Kurşun 13 (Kurşun Unfunctioned (Kurşun
6 Hobyar (TKGM) Cağaloğlu (EVOS) 304/22 (TKGM) _ ? 1
(EVOS) 2008) 2008) 2008)
Hacı (Elhac) Beşir Ağa Medrese 1745 (Kurşun DGF 12 (Kurşun 10 (Kurşun
7 Alemdar (TKGM) Cağaloğlu (EVOS) 374/3 (TKGM) ? Administrative-Cultural ÖNDER 1
(EVOS) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
1595-96 Davut Ağa? DGF Administrative-Cultural- Yeni Dünya
8 Alemdar (TKGM) Cağaloğlu (EVOS) Hadım Hasan Paşa Medrese (EVOS) 35/10 (TKGM) 9 (Kurşun 2008) 6 (EVOS) 1
(Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) Educational-Art Foundation
10 (Kurşun
Kubbealtı
Binbirdirek Köprülü Mehmed Paşa Medrese 1661 (Kurşun Mustafa Ağa? DGF 2008) [9 31 (Kurşun
9 Çemberlitaş (EVOS) 238/20 (TKGM) Cultural-Art Academy Culture 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu 2008)
and Art Foundation
2000)]
11 (Kurşun Turkish Authors
Kızlarağası (Mehmed Ağa, Hacı
1582-83 Municipality 2008) [10 26 (Kurşun Association /
10 Alemdar (TKGM) Cağaloğlu (EVOS) Rüstem, Hoca Rüstem) Medrese 48/8 (TKGM) ? Cultural 1
(Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu 2008) Türkiye Yazarlar
(EVOS)
2000)] Birliği
Educational- Eminönü Mufti-
Küçükmustafapaşa Sokullu Mehmed Paşa Medrese 1571 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan Municipality 16 (Kurşun Accomodational (boarding 35 (Kütükoğlu Sultanahmet
11 Kadırga (EVOS) 122/1 (TKGM) 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Koran school) (Kurşun 2000) Foundation
2008) (Kurşun 2008)
Directorate
1507 (Kurşun Yusuf Bin Papas DGF 19 (Kurşun Cultural (Türk Vakıf Hat 32 (Kurşun
12 Camcıali (TKGM) Beyazıt (EVOS) Beyazıt Medrese (EVOS) 584/21 (TKGM) General of 1
2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Sanatları Müzesi) 2008)
Foundations
İstanbul Fetih
Association -
Yahya Kemal
1690 (Kurşun Cultural-Art (Yahya Kemal
Mimar Hayrettin Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Hamdi Ağa DGF 10 (Kurşun Institute -
13 Çemberlitaş (EVOS) 221/30 (TKGM) 2008) (1690-91 Institute and Museum, 46 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Kubbealtı
(EVOS)) 1959)
Academy Culture
and Art Foundation
(Kurşun 2008)

83
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
1708 (EVOS)
Molla Fenari Mimar Davut DGF
14 Çemberlitaş (EVOS) Çorlulu Ali Paşa Medrese (EVOS) 250/11 (TKGM) (1707-1709 8 (Kurşun 2008)
(TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS)
(Kurşun 2008))
Administrative-Social-
Molla Fenari Çarşıkapı (Kurşun 1592-93 Davut Ağa (Kurşun DGF 16 (Kurşun Cultural-Art (foundation 5 (Kurşun Hizmet Foundation
15 Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese (EVOS) 271/1 (TKGM) 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) headquarter) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008)
2008)
Birlik Foundation
(in the past,
Emin Sinan Atik Ali Paşa (Gazi Atik Ali Paşa) 1496 (Kurşun DGF 16 (Kurşun Administrative-Social- 30 (Kurşun Muallimler
16 Çemberlitaş (EVOS) 244/23 (TKGM) ? 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Cultural (Kurşun 2008) 2008) Association /
Muallimler Birliği)
(Kurşun 2008)
Eminönü
Mahmutpaşa Nuruosmaniye (Sultan Osman Han) 1755-1756 Mustafa Ağa DGF 12 (Kurşun 50 (Kurşun
17 Cağaloğlu (EVOS) 299/126 (TKGM) Educational (Koran school) Müftülüğü (Kurşun 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
2008)
Süleymaniye Süleymaniye Complex, Evvel 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 22 (Kurşun Educational (library) Ministry of Culture
18 Süleymaniye (EVOS) 434/3 (TKGM) 50 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) and Tourism
Süleymaniye Süleymaniye Complex, Sani 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 22 (Kurşun Educational (library) Ministry of Culture
19 Süleymaniye (EVOS) 377/2 (TKGM) 50 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) and Tourism
Süleymaniye Süleymaniye Complex, Salis 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 20 (Kurşun Unfunctioned (Kurşun
20 Süleymaniye (EVOS) 376/2 (TKGM) _ Istanbul University 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
Turkey Academy
Süleymaniye Süleymaniye Complex, Rabi 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 20 (Kurşun Cultural-Educational of Sciences
21 (TKGM) 376/2 (TKGM) 14 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (research center) Chairmanship
(TÜBA)
Aziziye Social
Solidarity Culture
Süleymaniye Süleymaniye Complex, Darülhadis 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 22 (Kurşun Adnministrative-Social-
22 Süleymaniye (EVOS) 376/2 (TKGM) ? and Education 1
(TKGM) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Educational-Cultural
Foundation
(Kurşun 2008)
Süleymaniye Complex, Tıp Medrese
Süleymaniye 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 12 (Kurşun in restoration process
23 Süleymaniye (EVOS) (EVOS) [Helaki Hanı (Kurşun 433/16 (TKGM) _ _ 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (2015)
2008)]
Siyavuş Paşa (Hoca Hamza, Istanbul Art and
468/1,6,7,8,9,11 1590 (Kurşun Davut Ağa (Kurşun DGF 16 (Kurşun Cultural (Rosary and Hilye
24 Demirtaş (TKGM) Süleymaniye (EVOS) Deveoğlu Medrese (EVOS), [Fatma 1 (EVOS) Civilization 1
(TKGM) 2008) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Museum)
Sultan Medrese (Kurşun 2008)] Foundation
Accomodational (İbnül
Şehzadebaşı (EVOS) Emin Mahmut Kemal İnal İlim Yayma
Mollahüsrev Ekmekçizade Ahmed Paşa Medrese <1618 (Kurşun Sedefkar Mehmed DGF 17 (Kurşun
25 [Vefa (Kütükoğlu 567/3 (TKGM) Dormitory for Male 43 (EVOS) Association 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
2000)] Students, since 1972) (Kurşun 2008)
(Kurşun 2008)
Istanbul University
Kuyucu Murat Paşa Medrese 1610 (Kurşun Sedefkar Mehmed DGF 14 (Kurşun
26 Camcıali (TKGM) Vezneciler (EVOS) 670/1 (TKGM) Educational 50 (EVOS) Department of Fine 1
(EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Arts (Kurşun 2008)
Seyit Hasan Paşa (Cedid Hasan Paşa
Istanbul University
Derviş Paşa?) Medrese (EVOS), 1745 (Kurşun Çelebi Mustafa 10 (Kurşun
27 Camcıali (TKGM) Vezneciler (EVOS) 580/19 (TKGM) Municipality Administrative-Cultural 25 (EVOS) Euresia Institute 1
[Esseyyit Hasan Paşa Medrese 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) 2008)
(Kurşun 2008)
(Kütükoğlu 2000)]
Kalenderhane 1547 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 21 (Kurşun 15 (Kurşun
28 Şehzadebaşı (EVOS) Şehzade Medrese (EVOS) 950/9 (TKGM) Educational-Cultural Suffa Foundation 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)

84
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Paşa
Kalenderhane Medrese (EVOS), [Damad-ı Cedid 1720-21 DGF 13 (Kurşun Eastern Turkistan
29 Şehzadebaşı (EVOS) 668/34 (TKGM) __ Cultural 20? (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) İbrahim Paşa Medrese (Kütükoğlu (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Foundation
2000)]
Ankaravi Mehmed Efendi The Foundation of
(Abdülhalim Efendi, Hoşkadem, 1707 (Kurşun Mimar Kasım Ağa DGF 10 (Kurşun 34 (Kurşun Researches About
30 Kemalpaşa (TKGM) Şehzadebaşı (EVOS) 940/36 (TKGM) Administrative-Cultural 1
Ankaravi İsmail Efendi) Medrese 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008) Turks All Around
(EVOS) The World
Cultural (Caricature and
Istanbul
1590 (Kurşun Davut Ağa (Kurşun DGF Humour Works Museum / 26 (Kurşun
31 Kırkçeşme (TKGM) Saraçhane (EVOS) Gazanfer Ağa Medrese (EVOS) 2405/12 (TKGM) 15 (EVOS) Metropolitan 1
2008) 2008) (EVOS) Karikatür ve Mizah 2008)
Municipality
Eserleri Müzesi)
Cultural (Turkish
Directorate
Amcazade Hüseyin Paşa Medrese 1700-1701 İbrahim Ağa DGF Construction and Artcrafts 48 (Kurşun
32 Sofular (TKGM) Saraçhane (EVOS) 1061/76 (TKGM) 17 (EVOS) General of 1
(EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) Museum/Türk İnşaat ve 2008)
Foundations
Sanat Eserleri Müzesi)
Partially unused, partially
Gurebahüseyinağa Hasodabaşı Hasan Ağa Medrese 1895 (Kurşun DGF 10 (Kurşun
33 Horhor (EVOS) __ house, partially storage _ _ 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
895/26 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Directorate
1569 (Kurşun DGF 16 (Kütükoğlu
34 Haydar (TKGM) Zeyrek (Kurşun 2008) Haydar Paşa Medrese (EVOS) __ Accomodational 35 (EVOS) General of 1
2008) (EVOS) 2000)
2183/17 (TKGM) Foundations
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Baş <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 19 (Kurşun İlim Yayma
35 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/1 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Association
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Çifte Baş <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 19 (Kurşun
36 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ " 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/1 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Çifte Ayak <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 19 (Kurşun
37 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ " 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/1 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Ayak <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 19 (Kurşun
38 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ " 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/1 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Fatihin Eski
Eserlerini Koruma
ve İhya Derneği /
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Baş <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 20 (Kurşun The Association for
39 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Protection and
Amelioration of
Historical
2126/44 (TKGM) Buildings of Fatih
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Çifte Baş <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 20 (Kurşun Accomodational
40 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) _ " 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/44 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (dormitory) (Kurşun 2008)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Çifte <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 20 (Kurşun Accomodational
41 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) _ " 1
Ayak Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/44 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (dormitory) (Kurşun 2008)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Ayak <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 20 (Kurşun Accomodational
42 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) _ " 1
Kurşunlu Medrese (EVOS) 2126/44 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (dormitory) (Kurşun 2008)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Hamise <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 10 (Kütükoğlu
43 Sinanağa (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ " 1
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2440/6 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2000)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Sadise <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 10 (Kütükoğlu
44 Sinanağa (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ _ 1
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2441/12 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2000)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Sabia <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 10 (Kütükoğlu
45 Sinanağa (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ _ 1
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2441/12 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2000)
Fatih Complex, Karadeniz Samine <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 10 (Kütükoğlu
46 Sinanağa (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Unused (Kurşun 2008) _ _ 1
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2443/12 (TKGM) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2000)
Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)

85
 Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
Fatihin Eski
Eserlerini Koruma
ve İhya Derneği /
Fatih Complex, Tabhane Medrese <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf DGF 14 (Kütükoğlu The Association for
47 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Educational (Koran school) _ 1
(EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2000) Protection and
Amelioration of
Historical
2125/2 (TKGM) Buildings of Fatih
Yarhisar Camii
Koruma ve
Muid Ahmed Efendi Medrese
Unused (Kurşun 2008) (to Yaşatma Derneği /
(EVOS), [Ahmet Muit Efendi
1647 (Kurşun DGF, private be revitalized (Fatih Yarhisar Mosque
48 Sinanağa (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Medrese (Fatih Conservation Plan __ 10 (EVOS) _ 1
2008) (EVOS) Conservation Plan Report Protection and
Report 2003)], [Hüseyniye (Kurşun
2003)) Sustentation
2008)]
2410/1, 51 Association
(TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Bedihi Süleyman
1496-1503 DGF 11 (Kurşun 39 (Kurşun
49 Kirmasti (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Efdalzade Medrese (EVOS) __ Unused (Kurşun 2008) Efendi Foundation 1
(Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
1923/6 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Ali Kuşçu Mahallesi 1595-96 DGF
50 Fatih (EVOS) Hafız Ahmed Paşa Medrese (EVOS) __ 13 (EVOS) Social 1990 25 (EVOS) Selam Foundation 1
(TKGM) 1389/24 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS)
Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi __ [Kayserili Educational (Millet Library
1700 (Kurşun DGF 10 (Kurşun 99 (Kurşun Ministry of Culture
51 Sofular (TKGM) Fatih (EVOS) Medrese (EVOS) [Feyziye Medrese Mehmet Ağa / Millet Kütüphanesi) 1
2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008) and Tourism
(Kurşun 2008)] 1056/7 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)] (Kurşun 2008)
Cedid Abdürrahim (Abdurrahman, Educational-
Şeyh Resmi 1747 (Kurşun DGF 10 (Kurşun Fatih Mufti
52 Çarşamba (EVOS) Abdülhalim)? Efendi Medrese ? Accomodational (Boarding 39 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)
(EVOS) 3033/13 (TKGM) Koran School)
İsmail Ağa Camii
İlim ve Hizmet
Şeyhülislam Esad Efendi (Esad
Vakfı / İsmail Ağa
Efendi, Manyasizade, İslam Ağa, 1724 (Kurşun DGF 10 (Kurşun
53 Demirtaş (TKGM) Çarşamba (EVOS) ? Educational (Koran school) 36 (EVOS) Mosque Wisdom 1
Şeyhülislam İsmail Efendi) Medrese 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
and Serve
(EVOS)
493/4 (TKGM) Foundation
(1910/119 EVOS) (Kurşun 2008)
Educational (Fethiye
9 (Kütükoğlu
Katip Muslahattin Fethiye (Koca Sinan Paşa) Medrese 1590-1591 Public Primary School / Fethiye 67 (Kurşun Ministry of
54 Çarşamba (EVOS) __ 2000)-10 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) İlköğretim Okulu) (Kurşun 2008) Education
(Kurşun 2008)
1890/35 (TKGM) 2008)
Educational (Nişancı
Malülzade Medrese (EVOS),
Municipality 7 (Kütükoğlu Mehmet Paşa Primary Ministry of
55 Beyceğiz (TKGM) Çarşamba (EVOS) [Şeyhülislam Mehmed Efendi, İncirli 1582 (TKGM) 70 (EVOS) 1
(EVOS) 2000) School / Nişancı Mehmet Education
Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000)]
2138/23 (TKGM) Paşa İlkokulu) 1935
Üçbaş (Nurettin Hamza) Medrese >1893 (Kurşun DGF 12 (Kurşun in restoration process
56 Beyceğiz (TKGM) Karagümrük (EVOS) __ _ 1
(EVOS) 1348/30 (TKGM) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (2015)
Health (Health Care Center
/ Fatih Merkez Sağlık
Cedid (Semiz, Vasat) Ali Paşa 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 15 (Kurşun
57 Dervişali (TKGM) Karagümrük (EVOS) Ocağı ve Fatih Verem 54 (EVOS) Ministry of Health 1
Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Savaş Dispanseri) (Kurşun
2572/3 (TKGM) 2008)

86
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
Cultural-Educational-Art
(traditional Turkish
Hatice Sultan 1569 (Kurşun DGF 22 (Kurşun
58 Edirnekapı (EVOS) Mihrimah Sultan Medrese (EVOS) ? handicrafts center / 9 (EVOS) Fatih Municipality 1
(TKGM) 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
geleneksel Türk el sanatları
2497/13 (TKGM) merkezi)
Hacı Ferşad Efendi
1565 veya Education and
Fatmasultan Gazi (Kara) Ahmed Paşa Medrese Mimar Sinan DGF Accomodational
59 Topkapı (EVOS) 1571-72 16 (EVOS) 20 (EVOS) Culture 1
(TKGM) (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) (dormitory (Kurşun 2008))
(Kurşun 2008) Association
1927/3 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Health (Şadiye Hatun
Molla Şeref 1562-1563 Mimar Sinan 19 (Kurşun 32 (Kurşun Health Foundation
60 Aksaray (EVOS) Sultan Selim Han Medrese (EVOS) Clinic/Şadiye Hatun 1
(TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) 2008) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)
1969/11 (TKGM) Kliniği)
Mimar Abdullah-
Cerrahpaşa (Kurşun 1485 (Kurşun DGF 16 (Kurşun in restoration process
61 Hobyar (TKGM) Davud Paşa Medrese (EVOS) Mimar İsmail _ _ 1
2008) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (2015)
1134/35 (TKGM) (EVOS)
Hadım İbrahim Paşa (İbrahim Paşa,
Cerrahpaşa (Kurşun 1560 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 11 (Kurşun Yeşilay
62 Davutpaşa (TKGM) Esekapısı) Medrese (EVOS), Social-Cultural since 2015 1 1
2008) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Association
[Esekapı Medrese (Kurşun 2008)] 1158/20 (TKGM)
Bayrampaşa
Hanımlar Eğitim ve
Kültür Derneği /
Keçi Hatun 1635 (Kurşun Kasım Ağa DGF 14 (Kurşun
63 Haseki(EVOS) (EVOS) Educational-Cultural 25? Bayrampaşa 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Women Education
and Culture
1129/82 (TKGM) Association
1587 (Kurşun Deniz Feneri
Keçi Hatun Cerrahpaşa (Kurşun Davut Ağa (Kurşun DGF 15 (Kurşun Accomodational (guest 9 (Kurşun
64 Gevherhan Sultan Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Association 1
(TKGM) 2008) 2008) (EVOS) 2008) house (Kurşun 2008)) 2008)
1105/4 (TKGM) (1568?(EVOS)) (Kurşun 2008)
Presidency of
1539-1540 Mimar Sinan DGF 45 (Kurşun
65 Nevbahar (TKGM) Haseki (EVOS) Haseki Sultan Medrese (EVOS) 16 (EVOS) Cultural (research center) Religious Affairs 1
(Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
1808/6 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Beyazıt II
Kocamustafapaşa Koca Mustafa Paşa (Sümbül Efendi) DGF 14 (Kurşun Educational (Koran school Fatih Mufti
66 Alifakih (TKGM) Period (Kurşun __ 1
(EVOS) Medrese (EVOS) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)) (Kurşun 2008)
1177/51 (TKGM) 2008)
Health (Eyüp Sultan Health
Sokullu Mehmet Paşa (İsmihan
1568-69 Mimar Sinan DGF 19 (Kurşun Center/ Eyüp Sultan
67 Merkez (TKGM) Eyüp (EVOS) Sultan) Medrese (EVOS), [İbrahim 54 (EVOS) Ministry of Health 1
(Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Merkez Sağlık Ocağı
Hanoğlu Medrese (Kurşun 2008)]
52/14 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008))
Cultural-Art-Educational
(Janissary band, The "Eyüp Eyüp Municipality,
Toys" Project Studio and Tarih Foundation
Cezrikasım Zal Mahmud Paşa Complex, Birinci >1580 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 17 (Kurşun
68 Eyüp (EVOS) Workshop / Mehterhane, 18 (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) - 1
(TKGM) (Tahtani) Medrese (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Eyüp Oyuncakçılığı Projesi İŞKUR (Kurşun
Eğitim Yeri ve Atölyesi 2008)
65/19 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008))
Cezrikasım Zal Mahmud Paşa Complex, İkinci >1580 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 12 (Kurşun Cultural (Janissary Eyüp Municipality
69 Eyüp (EVOS) 18 (EVOS) 1
(TKGM) (Fevkani) Medrese (EVOS) 65/19 (TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) band/Mehterhane) (Kurşun 2008)
Hacı Beşir Ağa Medrese (EVOS), Cultural-Educational-Art Şehbal İstanbul
Düğmeciler 1734-1735 DGF
70 Eyüp (EVOS) [Hacı Beşir Ağa Darülhadis (Kurşun __ 8 (Kurşun 2008) (education culture and art 6 (EVOS) Education Culture 1
(TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS)
2008)] 134/5 (TKGM) center) and Art Center

87
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s)) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
EXISTING MEDRESES
Mimar Sinan DGF 17 (Kurşun Social-Cultural (social
71 Kemankeş (TKGM) Tophane (EVOS) Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese (EVOS) 1580 (EVOS) 1 (EVOS) Çayeli Foundation 1
63/18 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) cultural center)
1555-56 Mimar Sinan DGF 12 (Kurşun
72 Sinanpaşa (TKGM) Beşiktaş (EVOS) Sinan Paşa Medrese (EVOS) Unfunctioned _ _ 1
291/50 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Health (Mihrimah Sultan
Mihrimah Sultan Medrese (EVOS),
Hace Hesna Hatun 1550 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 16 (Kurşun Medical Center / Mihrimah 21 (Kurşun
73 Üsküdar (EVOS) [Mihrümah Sultan Medrese private sector 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) Sultan Tıp Merkezi 2008)
(Kütükoğlu 2000)]
526/2 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008))
Educational (Şemsi Paşa
Şemsi Ahmet Paşa Medrese (EVOS), Provincial Public Library / Ministry of Culture
Rumimehmetpaşa 1580 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan DGF 12 (Kurşun 62 (Kurşun
74 Üsküdar (EVOS) [Şemsi Paşa Medrese (Kütükoğlu Şemsi Paşa İlçe Halk and Tourism 1
(TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
2000)] Kütüphanesi (Kurşun (Kurşun 2008)
431/3 (TKGM) 2008))
1721-1722 Kayserili Mehmed DGF 11 (Kurşun Educational (Koran school Üsküdar Mufti
75 Kefçedede (TKGM) Üsküdar (EVOS) Ahmediye Medrese (EVOS) 38 (EVOS) 1
403/27 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)) (Kurşun 2008)
Educational-Cultural İlim Yayma
Validei Atik 1579-80 Mimar Sinan DGF 18 (Kurşun
76 Üsküdar (EVOS) Atik Valide Medrese (EVOS) (education and cultural 17 (EVOS) Association 1
(TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
228/1 (TKGM) center) (Kurşun 2008)
>1640 (Kurşun Kasım Ağa DGF
77 Muratreis (TKGM) Üsküdar (EVOS) Çinili Medrese (EVOS) 7 (Kurşun 2008) Unfunctioned _ _ 1
179/1 (TKGM) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS)
Osmanlı
Davut Ağa- Dalgıç
Valide Sultan Medrese (EVOS), Araştırmaları Vakfı
1598- ? Ahmet Ağa- Municipality 5 (Kütükoğlu
78 Alemdar (TKGM) Gülhane (EVOS) [Vani Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu Cultural (Research Center) 16 (EVOS) / Ottoman Studies 1
(Kurşun 2008) Mustafa Ağa (EVOS) 2000)
2000)] Foundation
(Kurşun)
29/2 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Kepenekçi Hoca Sinan Medrese
Commercial (carpenter
(EVOS), [Emin Sinan Medrese, 1545 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan Municipality 11 (Kurşun
79 Demirtaş (TKGM) Süleymaniye (EVOS) workshop / marangozhane _ __ 1
Sinan Emir Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
(Kurşun 2008))
2000)] 471/4 (TKGM)
Cağaloğlu (Kütükoğlu
1563-64 DGF 12 (Kurşun Others (archive storage Prime Minstry
80 Hocapaşa (TKGM) 2000) [Sirkeci (Kurşun Şah-ı Huban Medrese (EVOS) _ ? 1
(Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)) (Kurşun 2008)
2008)] 27/1 (TKGM)
Küçük Ayasofya (Kurşun 2008), late 15th Cultural-Educational-Art Ahmet Yesevi
Küçük Ayasofya DGF 24 (Kurşun 19 (Kurşun
81 İsakpaşa (TKGM) [Ayasofyayi Sagir (Darüssaade Ağası century _ (Turkish handicraft Foundation 1
(EVOS) (EVOS) 2008) 2008)
Hüseyin Ağa) Medrese (EVOS)] 116/2 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) workshop) (Kurşun 2008)
Social-Administrative
Zeyrek (EVOS) [Çırçır 1877-1878 Municipality 66 (Kurşun Çırçır Sports Club
82 Hüsambey (TKGM) Haliliye (Zeyrek) Medrese (EVOS) __ 7 (Kurşun 2008) (Kulüp / Club (Kurşun 1
(Kurşun 2008)] (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS) 2008) (Kurşun 2008)
1944/3 (TKGM) 2008))
Kaba Halil Medrese (EVOS), [Kaba Mid of 18th
DGF
83 Beyceğiz (TKGM) Çarşamba (EVOS) Halil Efendi (Kadı Halil Efendi) century __ 7 (Kurşun 2008) Boş (Kurşun 2008) _ 1
(EVOS)
Medrese (Kurşun 2008)] 1364/35 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008)
Mahmutpaşa 1472-73 Atik Sinan (Kurşun Municipality 18 (Kurşun
84 Mahmutpaşa (EVOS) Mahmutpaşa Medrese (EVOS) Boş (Kurşun 2008) _ 1
(TKGM) 324/48 (TKGM) (Kurşun 2008) 2008) (EVOS) 2008)
Nişancı Mehmet Paşa (Ali Şir Nevai)
1563-1566 Mimar Sinan DGF
85 Seyitömer (TKGM) Altımermer (EVOS) Medrese (EVOS), [Nişancı Mehmed 1739/30 1739/33 8 (Kurşun 2008) Boş (Kurşun 2008) _ 1
(Kurşun 2008) (Kurşun 2008) (EVOS)
Bey Medrese (Kurşun 2008)] (TKGM)
Bereketzade (Valide Kethüdası Others (classroom section
1705 (Kurşun DGF
86 Galata (EVOS) Mehmet Efendi, Gülnuş Emetullah __ _ masjid, rooms demolished)
2008) (EVOS)
Sultan) Medrese (EVOS) 291/50 (EVOS) (Kurşun 2008) 1
TOTAL 18 39 9 17 3
GRAND TOTAL 86

88
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
Nişancı Mehmet Paşa (Çukur)
87 Çarşamba (EVOS) ? ? 13-14 (EVOS) demolished
Medrese (EVOS)
Nişancı Mehmet Paşa (Tahtani) demolished (Kütükoğlu
88 Çarşamba (EVOS)
Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
Nişancı Mehmet Paşa (Fevkani) demolished (Kütükoğlu
89 Çarşamba (EVOS)
Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
Hattat Rakım (Rakım Efendi) DGF
90 Edirnekapı (EVOS) >1826 10 (EVOS) demolished (Kurşun 2008)
Medrese (EVOS) 1362/6 (EVOS) (EVOS) 1
Şeyhülislam Minkarizade Yahya 16.c? (Kurşun DGF
91 Üsküdar (EVOS) Yıkılmış
Efendi Medrese (EVOS) 291/1 (EVOS) 2008) (EVOS) 1
Dülgerzade (Ahmet Şemsettin Habib 15. yy sonu DGF 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
92 Saraçhane (EVOS)
Efendi) Medrese (EVOS) 1049/6 (EVOS) (cami 1482) (EVOS) 2000) 2000) 1
Kıztaşı (Kütükoğlu Cafer Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 6 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
93 _
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Şeyh Ebu'l Vefa Medrese (Hankah, > 1476 (Kurşun 15 or 18 or 16
94 Vefa (Kurşun 2008) __ demolished (Kurşun 2008)
Hakaniye-i Vefa) (Kurşun 2008) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) 1
1652
Sultanahmet Dizdariye Medrese (Kütükoğlu 12 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
95 (Kütükoğlu __
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000) 1
Küçük Ayasofya Mirzeban Sultan Medrese 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
96 __ __
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Kapıağası Mahmut Paşa Medrese 1554
Mimar Sinan DGF 5 (Kütükoğlu
97 İshakpaşa (EVOS) (EVOS), Kapuağası Mahmud Ağa (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (EVOS) 2000)
Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) _ 2000) 1
15.c.
İshak Paşa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 5 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
98 İshakpaşa (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000)
2000) 1
Private, New
Minki Ali Efendi Medrese (ICPR),
Foundation, demolished to be
99 Sinan Ağa (ICPR) Misli Ali Efendi Medrese
1457/1,12,15,85,9 Government reconstructed (ICPR)
(Kütükoğlu 2000)
0,93 (ICPR) (ICPR)
Sinan Ağa Abdülhalim Efendi Medrese 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
100 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Hüseyniye Medrese (ICPR), Ula-yı 2411/20, 21, 22 Private, DGF 14 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
101 Sinan Ağa (ICPR)
Hüseyniye (Kütükoğlu 2000) (ICPR) (ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
demolished (Kütükoğlu
Sultanahmet 1466 (Kurşun DGF
102 Ayasofya Medrese (EVOS) __ 2000) to be reconstructed
(EVOS) 2008) (EVOS)
57/7 (EVOS) (ICPR) 1
1683 Istanbul
Yavuz Selim (Google 9 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
103 Koca Dede (ICPR) Debbağzade Medrese (ICPR) 1377/24, 25, 30 (Kütükoğlu Government
Maps) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
(ICPR) 2000) (ICPR)
Defterdar İbrahim Paşa (EVOS)
1542-1544
(Defterdar İbrahim Ağa (ICPR) , Mimar Sinan DGF 7-8 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
104 Dervişali (EVOS) Edirnekapı (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu
Defterdar İbrahim Efendi (Kütükoğlu 2000) (EVOS) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
2000)
(Kütükoğlu 2000)) Medrese 2546/15 (EVOS)
Kıbrısi Abdullah Efendi Medrese 2483/ 37, 38 Private 5 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
105 Müftü Ali (ICPR) _
(ICPR) (ICPR) (ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
DGF
(EVOS)
Sinan Ağa (EVOS) (Damat Mehmet (Private, 5 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
106 Cibali (EVOS) Haydar (ICPR) _
Efendi (ICPR)) Medrese New 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
2180/13, 40 Foundation
(ICPR) (ICPR))

89
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
1790-1791 Private, New
Çarşamba (Google 18 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
107 Şeyh Resmi (ICPR) Yahya Tevfik Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu
1446/1, 2, 3, 15 Foundation
Maps) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
(ICPR) 2000) (ICPR)
second half of
Yeni Çeşme (Ali Efendi) Medrese Private, New
Çarşamba (Google 16.c. 6 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
108 Şeyh Resmi (ICPR) (ICPR), Perviz Efendi Medrese Foundation
Maps) (Kütükoğlu 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (ICPR)
1458/6, 7 (ICPR) 2000)
Samanizade Medrese (ICPR), Ömer Government
Çarşamba (Google demolished to be
109 Şeyh Resmi (ICPR) Hulusi Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu shared
Maps) reconstructed (ICPR)
2000) 1455/22 (ICPR) (ICPR)
Baba Hasan Alemi Darülhadis Bekir Ağa Medrese University demolished to be
110
(ICPR) (ICPR) 936/62 (ICPR) (ICPR) reconstructed (ICPR)
1372/1, 3, 4, 5, 7, chadastral demolished to be
111 Koca Dede (ICPR) Kadı Asker Mustafa Medrese (ICPR)
8, 9, 10 (ICPR) void (ICPR) reconstructed (ICPR)
Private, New
Emir Buhari Tekkesi Medrese demolished to be
112 Hoca Üveyz (ICPR) 2046/16, 18, 25, Foundation,
(ICPR) reconstructed (ICPR)
28, 29 (ICPR) İBB (ICPR)
Fatih
Keçeci Karabaş demolished to be
113 Ali Paşa Medrese (ICPR) Municipality
(ICPR) reconstructed (ICPR)
3026/1 (ICPR) (ICPR)
New
8 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
114 Hasan Halife (ICPR) Uncu Hafız Medrese (ICPR) Foundation
2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
2013/14 (ICPR) (ICPR)
Muratpaşa Medrese (ICPR), Murad 1477-1478
Private 12 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
115 Murat Paşa (ICPR) Paşayı Atik Medrese (Kütükoğlu (Kütükoğlu
(ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
2000) 880/12 (ICPR) 2000)
beginning of
Hekimbaşı Ömer Efendi Medrese Private 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
116 Nevbahar (ICPR) 1785/33, 54 18.c (Kütükoğlu
(ICPR) (ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
(ICPR) 2000)
Darül Hadis Beşir Mehmet Ağa New
Kalenderhane 3 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
117 Eminönü (EVOS) Medrese (ICPR), Cedid Beşir Ağa _ Foundation
(ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 668/8 (ICPR) (ICPR)

Kalenderhane Government 15 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be

118 Eminönü (EVOS) Kalenderhane Medrese (ICPR) _
(ICPR) (ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
651/51 (ICPR)
1666-1667
Kalenderhane Ebulfazl Mahmut Efendi Medrese Chadastral 11 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
119 Eminönü (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu
(ICPR) (ICPR, Kütükoğlu 2000) void (ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
956/1 (ICPR) 2000)
Yoğurtçuoğlu Medrese (ICPR), 565/40, 41, 42,
Hoca Gıyasettin 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished to be
120 Vefa (Kütükoğlu 2000) İbrahim Kethüda Medrese 55, 56, 57, 61 Şahıs
(ICPR) 2000) reconstructed (ICPR)
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (ICPR)
782/2, 8, 10, 16, demolished to be
121 Katip Kasım (ICPR) Mustafa Efendi Medrese (ICPR) Şahıs
20, 22, 23 (ICPR) reconstructed (ICPR)
DGF demolished for
Çarşıkapı (Kütükoğlu Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa 17.c(Kütükoğlu
122 (Kütükoğlu enlargement of street
2000) Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000)
Beşiktaş (Ahunbay Hayreddin Paşa Medrese (Ahunbay 16. yy demolished (Ahunbay
123
1994) 1994) (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)

90
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
Beşiktaş (Ahunbay Yahya Efendi Medrese (Ahunbay 16. yy demolished (Ahunbay
124
1994) 1994) (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Beşiktaş (Ahunbay Emin Mustafa Çelebi Medrese 16. yy demolished (Ahunbay
125
1994) (Ahunbay 1994) (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Kasımpaşa (Ahunbay Güzelce Kasım Paşa Medrese 16. yy demolished (Ahunbay
126
1994) (Ahunbay 1994) (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Piyalepaşa (Ahunbay Piyale Paşa Medrese (Ahunbay 16. yy demolished (Ahunbay
127
1994) 1994) (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Cezeri Kasım Paşa Medrese demolished (Ahunbay
128 Eyüp (Ahunbay 1994)
(Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Taşköprülü Medrese (Ahunbay demolished (Ahunbay
129 Eyüp (Ahunbay 1994)
1994) 1994)
Behram Kethüda Medrese (Ahunbay demolished (Ahunbay
130 Eyüp (Ahunbay 1994)
1994) 1994)
Defterdar Nazlı Mahmut Çelebi demolished (Ahunbay
131 Eyüp (Ahunbay 1994)
Medrese (Ahunbay 1994) 1994)
Mahmutpaşa Rahıkizade Medrese (Kütükoğlu 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
132
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Hocapaşa (Kütükoğlu Cezayirli Ahmed Paşa Medrese 3-5 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
133 Daye Hatun
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)

Hocapaşa (Kütükoğlu Ferhad Paşa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu

134 Daye Hatun
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)

Hocapaşa (Kütükoğlu Kayış Mustafa Ağa Medrese 12 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu

135
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Beyazıt (Kütükoğlu Ruznamçeci Ali Efendi Medrese ? (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
136
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Soğanağa Beyazıt (Kütükoğlu Rakım Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
137
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Beyazıt (Kütükoğlu Şah Kulu Medrese (Sinekli Medrese) 11 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
138
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Uzunçarşıbaşı İbrahim Paşa-yı Atik Medrese 13 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
139 Mercanağa (EVOS) 339/261
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Hüseyin Ağa Çarşıkapı (Kütükoğlu Mimar Hasan Ağa Medrese 3 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
140 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Şehzadebaşı Baba Mahmud Bekir Ağa Darülhadis 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
141 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Şehzadebaşı Horhor Bosnavi Darülhadis (Kütükoğlu 9 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
142 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Karagümrük Abdülgaffar Efendi Medrese 18 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
143 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Şehremini (Kütükoğlu Dülbendcizade Mustafa Efendi 11 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
144 _
2000) Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
1573-1574
Cerrahpaşa (Kütükoğlu Şah Sultan Medrese (Kütükoğlu 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
145 (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
late 17.c
Kocamustafapaşa Nuh Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 6 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
146 (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Aydın Kethüda Sayd-ı Canan Kalfa Medrese demolished (Kütükoğlu
147 _ _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)

91
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
Nişancı Paşa-yı Atik (Tezkireci
Kumkapı (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
148 Osman Efendi) Medrese (Kütükoğlu _
2000) 2000)
2000)
Süleymaniye Emre (Emir) Hoca Medrese 569/1(Kütükoğlu 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
149
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1587
Süleymaniye Süleyman Subaşı Medrese 16 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
150 (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Semsüddin Molla Gürani Medrese 6 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
151 Vefa (Kütükoğlu 2000) _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
1476
Yahya Güzel Medrese (Kütükoğlu 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
152 Vefa (Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Kirmasti (Sinekli) Medrese 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
153 Vefa (Kütükoğlu 2000)
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
1707
Vezneciler (Kütükoğlu Hasan Ağa Darülhadis (Kütükoğlu 9 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
154 (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Pir Mehmed Paşa Medrese (Pir early 16.c
Saraçhane (Kütükoğlu 21 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
155 Mehmet Paşa Zaviye) (Kütükoğlu (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000)
2000) 2000)
<1660
Saraçhane (Kütükoğlu Mimar Kasım Ağa Medrese 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
156 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
second half of
Zeyrek (Kütükoğlu Hamid Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 16.c. Mimar Sinan 9-29 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
157
2000) 2000) (Kütükoğlu (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Haydar (Kütükoğlu Zeyrek (Kütükoğlu Hasanzade Medrese (Kütükoğlu 17 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
158 _
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1655
Haydar (Kütükoğlu Zeyrek (Kütükoğlu Muhyiddini Kocavi Medrese 4 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
159 (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Sinan Ağa Fatih (Kütükoğlu 17 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
160 Çayırlı Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
second half of
Fatih (Kütükoğlu Tuti Abdüllatif Efendi Medrese 5 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
161 17.c (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Mimar Sinan Yusuf Efendi (Sarı 15.c.
Aşık Paşa Fatih (Kütükoğlu 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
162 Saltuk, Baba Saltuk) Medrese (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
Fatih (Kütükoğlu Moravi Elhac Osman Efendi 8 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
163 _
2000) Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Çırçır (Kütükoğlu Hayriye Medrese (Ayşe Hatun 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
164 _
2000) Dersiyesi) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Fatih (Kütükoğlu Celeb Hacı Mehmed Ağa Medrese 15 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
165 _
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
1542
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Papaszade Mustafa Çelebi Medrese 28 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
166 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
10-11
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Çavuşbasşı Süleyman Ağa Medrese 17.c (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
167 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)

92
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Hekim Çelebi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 21 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
168 _
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Nazır Hüseyin Ağa Medrese 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
169 _
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
15.c.
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Molla Kestel Medrese (Kütükoğlu 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
170 (Kütükoğlu
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
1760-1763/64
Laleli (Kütükoğlu Sultan Mustafa Medrese (by Mustafa Tahir Ağa 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
171 (Kütükoğlu
2000) III) (Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Katip Kasım Yenikapı (Kütükoğlu Hoca Üveys Medrese (Kütükoğlu 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
172 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1518
Çapa (Kütükoğlu Defterdar Ahmed Çelebi Medrese 11 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
173 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Çapa (Kütükoğlu İsmet Bey Medrese (Kütükoğlu 4 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
174 _
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1669
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu İzzet Mehmed Efendi Darülhadis 14 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
175 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Yahya Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 16.c (Kütükoğlu 20? (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
176
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1592
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Zekeriyya Efendi Medrese 12 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
177 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Valide Sultan Medrese (Kütükoğlu 17.c (Kütükoğlu 15 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
178
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
12-13
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Papaszade Ahmet Paşa Medrese demolished (Kütükoğlu
179 _ (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
2000)
Koca Dede Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Koğacı Dede Medrese (Kütükoğlu 11 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
180 _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1677
Koca Dede Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Mustafa Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 9 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
181 (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
1627 11-14
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Müfti Hüseyin Efendi Medrese demolished (Kütükoğlu
182 (Kütükoğlu (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Çukur Medrese) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000)
2000) 2000)
late 18.c
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Ömer Hulusi Efendi Darülhadis 14 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
183 (Kütükoğlu
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Hayriye (Hafız Seyyid) Medrese 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
184 _
2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Tevkı'i Cafer Efendi (Cafer Çelebi) 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
185 _
2000) Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Efdalzade Nişanca (Kütükoğlu 4 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
186 Küçük Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) _
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
1630
Efdalzade Nişanca (Kütükoğlu Hasan Efendi Medrese (Kütükoğlu 5 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
187 (Kütükoğlu
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
2000)
Nişanca (Kütükoğlu Ümmi Veled Medrese (Kütükoğlu 16.c (Kütükoğlu Mimar Sinan 9-10 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
188
2000) 2000) 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)

93
 Table 2.1. List of existing and demolished medreses in Istanbul, in 2015 (continued)
Duration of Period (century)
Current the last
Building
District (Mahalle) Quarter (Semt) Name (Other Famous Name(s) Building date Architect Owner Room number Current Function function by User/Tennant
Block/Lot 15 16 17 18 19
(EVOS) 2015
(year)
DEMOLISHED MEDRESES
Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu Mehmed Ağa Medrese (Kütükoğlu 10 (Kütükoğludemolished (Kütükoğlu
189 _
2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Atik Ali Paşa Karagümrük Segbanbaşı Kara Halil (Sekban Ali 16.c (Kütükoğlu 16.c (Kütükoğlu 11 (Kütükoğludemolished (Kütükoğlu
190
(Kütükoğlu 2000) (Kütükoğlu 2000) Bey) Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000) 2000)
Katip Muslihiddin Çarşamba (Kütükoğlu İsmihan (Esmahan) Sultan Medrese 9 (Kütükoğludemolished (Kütükoğlu
191 16.c (EVOS)
(Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu 2000) 2000) 2000)
Eğrikapı (Kütükoğlu 16.c (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
192 Kariye Medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000) _
2000) 2000) 2000)
Veli Efendi Medrese (Veli Efendi >1741 (Kurşun 7 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
193 Fatih (EVOS) ? DGF
Library) (EVOS) _ 2008) 2000) 2000) 1
Yavuz Sultan Selim Medrese
194 Çarşamba (EVOS) DGF
(EVOS) 1969/11 (EVOS)
195 Çarşamba (EVOS) Şerifzade Medrese (EVOS) Municipality
_
196 Çarşamba (EVOS) Osman Paşa Medrese (EVOS) _ DGF
197 Beyceğiz (EVOS) Karagümrük (EVOS) Ahmet Çavuş Medrese (EVOS) 1367/2 (EVOS) DGF
13 (Kütükoğlu demolished (Kütükoğlu
198 Karagümrük (EVOS) Fetva Emini Medrese (EVOS) DGF
_ 2000) 2000)
Şeyhülislam Esseyyid Mustafa
199 Eyüp (EVOS) Municipality originally dervish lodge
Efendi Medrese (EVOS) _
Selimiye Külliyesinde Medrese
200 Üsküdar (EVOS) DGF ?
(EVOS) 322/1 (EVOS)
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Hamise <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished for
201 Fatih (EVOS) DGF _ "
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) 2000) enlargement of street 1
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Sadise <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished for
202 Fatih (EVOS) DGF _
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) 2000) enlargement of street 1
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Sabia <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished for
203 Fatih (EVOS) DGF _
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) 2000) enlargement of street 1
Fatih Complex, Akdeniz Samine <1474 (Kurşun Sinanüddin Yusuf 10 (Kütükoğlu demolished for
204 Fatih (EVOS) DGF _
Tetimme Medrese (EVOS) 2008) Ağa (Kurşun 2008) 2000) enlargement of street 1
205 Eyüp (EVOS) Medrese Next to Çiviciler (EVOS) 52/58 (EVOS) DGF ?
206 Süleymaniye (EVOS) Demirtaş Medrese (EVOS) 493/4 (EVOS) DGF ?
207 Mahmutpaşa (EVOS) Seyit Halil Efendi Medrese (EVOS) 259/11 (EVOS) DGF ?
208 Kadıköy (EVOS) Manastır Medrese (EVOS) 782/6 (EVOS) DGF ?
Eminönü
209 Darülhadis Medrese ? (EVOS) Municipality ?
(Küçükpazar) (EVOS) _
210 Çarşamba (EVOS) Yahya Efendi Medrese (EVOS) _ DGF ?
DEMOLİSHED MEDRESES TOTAL 124
GRAND TOTAL 210
OTHERS (that were considered as medrese in both archive documents and literature, however, they had doubtful information about the name)
DGF
mosque Zeyrek (EVOS) Zeyrek Medrese (EVOS) mosque
1944/3 (EVOS) (EVOS)
it is not a Süleymaniye Complex Mülazımlar 1558 (Kurşun Mimar Sinan 20 (Kurşun
Süleymaniye (EVOS) empty _ 1
medrese Medrese (EVOS, Kurşun 2008) 2008) (Kurşun 2008) 2008)
Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan Municipality
repeated? Galata (EVOS) ?
(Bereketzade?) Medrese (EVOS) _ (EVOS)
1745
Dervişpaşa Medrese (Seyit Hasan DGF
repeated? Vezneciler (EVOS) (Kütükoğlu 1
Paşa Medrese? (Kütükoğlu 2000)) (EVOS)
580/19 (EVOS) 2000)

94
 Table 2.4. Functions of Existing Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul in 2015
FUNCTIONS OF EXISTING OTTOMAN MEDRESES IN ISTANBUL IN 2015
Medrese Type of Function Function TOTAL

Social-Cultural-Educational-Fine Arts
8
(administration) Foundation Headquarter, Social-Cultural Educational Center (without headquarter)
Cultural Museum, Cultural and Administrative Center, Cultural Center, Academic Research Center, Janissary Band (Mehter) 12
Cultural-Fine Arts Traditional Arts Center 7
Educational-Cultural Educational and Cultural Center 4
Social Social Center, Club 2
Existing Medreses Educational Koran Course, Library, School, University 18
Accomodation Dormitory, Guest House, Lodging house 7
Commercial Market,Touristic Cafe-Shop,Carpenter's Workshop 3
Health Cottage Hospital, Health Center, Policlinic 4
Unfunctioned Empty, In Restoration Process 17
Others Archive storage, Masjid, Unknown 4
TOTAL 86
Demolished Medreses 125
GRAND TOTAL 211

Figure 2.40. Distribution of Types of Functions of Existing Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul in 2015

95
 Table 2.5. Distributions of Users’ Profile on Types of Functions in Existing Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul in 2015
Distribution of Users' Profile on Types of Function

USER PROFILE TOTAL

TYPE OF FUNCTION Governmental Associations and New Private
Municipality University
Organisation Foundations sector
Social-Cultural-Educational-Fine
0 0 0 8 0 8
Arts (administration)
Cultural 4 2 1 5 0 12

Cultural-Fine Arts 0 2 0 5 0 7
Educational-Cultural 0 0 0 4 0 4

Social 0 0 0 2 0 2

Educational 11 0 1 6 0 18

Accomodation 1 0 0 6 0 7

Commercial 0 0 0 2 1 3
Health 2 0 0 1 1 4
Unfunctioned 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 4 0 4

TOTAL 18 4 2 43 2 69

Figure 2.41. Distribution of "Users' Profiles" of Existing Medreses in Istanbul in 2015 Figure 2.42. Distribution of "Users' Profiles" on "Types of Function" of Existing Medreses in Istanbul
in 2015

96
 CHAPTER III

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDRESES FROM ORIGINAL USE TO REUSE:

SELECTED CASES FROM ISTANBUL

Between 2000-2015, 24 medreses have been refunctioned in Istanbul. Between 2000-

2015, 24 medreses have been repaired refunctioning in Istanbul. In this chapter a
detailed comprehension of the reused medreses will be provided based on the selected
cases. As explained in Chapter I, 10 medreses are selected considering the following
criteria;

a) Being under the same owner,

b) Having similar architectural character in terms of space relations,
c) Having been subjected to intense reuse interventions within a comprehensive
restoration.

These medreses are shown in the Figure 35 as;

1) Beyazıt Medrese
2) Atik Ali Paşa Medrese
3) Haseki Medrese
4) Şehzade Medrese
5) Rüstem Paşa Medrese
6) Rabi Medrese
7) Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese
8) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese
9) Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese
10) Sultan Ahmet Medrese

All these are self-standing medreses having a spatial capacity ranging between 16-24
rooms and part of a complex (except for Rüstem Paşa Medrese). Except for Kılıç Ali
Paşa Medrese, all of the selected medreses are in the boundary of Historic Peninsula
97
that is a complete conservation area including four of the Heritage Sites, a tourism area
and several rehabilitation areas. (Figure 3.1).

The selected medreses have been studied following a chronological order throughout
the chapter. Each medrese has been studied first in terms of its original and current
contextual features, architectural characteristics, functional and intervention
backgrounds. Secondly, their last new use process and interventions are studied based
on site survey, literature survey, archive documents and interviews with users. Studies
have been documented in the 21 charts numbered from Chart 1.1 to Chart 10.2 (see
Appendix B).

Figure 3.1. Locations of case medreses within Conservation and Rehabilitation Sites
of Istanul (Alan Başkanlığı)

98
3.1. Beyazıt Medrese (1506-1507)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Beyazıt Medrese between between at
the beginning of 1900’s and 2016 were studied by considering contextual,
architectural, functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and
social inputs. For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features
of Beyazıt Medrese were documented first for better understanding and comparison.

3.1.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Beyazıt
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Beyazıt Medrese was part of Beyazıt II Complex. It was built by Sultan Beyazıt II.
The complex consisted of a great mosque (Beyazıt Mosque), a tomb, a medrese, an
imaret, a tabhane, a primary school, a hamam, a caravanseri (Eyice-1 1994; Eyice-2
1994) and a sebil (Kütükoğlu 2000, p. 85). Buildings of the complex were spread over
a wide area. (Figures 3.2., 3.3. and 3.4.) Similar to Amasya (1486) and Edirne (1488)
Beyazıt II Complexes, the medrese was located far from the mosque in Istanbul
Beyazıt II Complex (Kütükoğlu 2000, 85). The complex was placed in a great garden
surrounded with a garden wall in the 17th century (Eyice-11994).

Beyazıt Medrese was a self-standing building between the Beyazıt Mosque and the
hamam (Figure 3.4.). The 1505 dated foundation charter of the complex did not
mention about the medrese (Charter 1). However, according to a 1506 dated archive
document, Beyazıt Medrese was constructed just after the completion of the mosque’s
construction in 1505 and it was completed in 1507 (Eyice-1 1994).

99
 Figure 3.2. (Left). Beyazıt Medrese in Figure 3.3. (Right). Beyazıt Medrese in
Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th century Mühendishane Map, 1848
(Kubilay 2010)

Figure 3.4. Beyazıt Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2015:

In Ottoman Period, around the Beyazıt Complex was full of houses and shops (Figure
3.6.). In the Republican Period, as a result of the great urbanization works between
1956-1959, the houses and shops around the complex had been demolished together
with the whole district (Eyice-11994) to create a great square between the mosque and
the medrese (Figure 3.3.). The outer garden walls were also demolished in the square
arrangements and expropriation works (Eyice-1 1994). A great square pool was also
constructed in the square. The name of the new square was derived from the name of
the complex. The Beyazıt Square stands on the location of ancient Byzantine Forum
Tauri, which was one of the most important squares of Constantin of Byzantine with

100
a great pool or open cistern, called Nymphaeum Maximum (Freely and Çakmak 2004,
p.39). Referring to the pool constructed around 1959, the medrese began to be called
as “Havuzlu Medrese”, that is “The Medrese with Pool”, (Eyice-1 1994).

Except for sebil, all the buildings of the complex still existed in 2015 (Figure 3.5.).
The mosque and the tomb had kept their original functions. However, the medrese,
hamam, caravanserai, tabhane and primary school were refunctioned by different
users. Hamam was used as a museum, namely Bayezid II Hamam Culture Museum,
by Istanbul University. Caravanserai and tabhane had being used together as city
library since the late Ottoman period. 1800s, primary school had also being used as a
library, namely Hakkı Tarık Us Library, since 1960s.

In 2015, around the medrese, Istanbul University Law, Pharmacy and Literature
Faculties, university and public libraries, historic and new touristic trade khans and
shops, city hotels, many of historic edifices, historic Grand Bazaar, restaurants and the
buildings being used for social-cultural activities were located. It was easy to access
the medrese by tramway, public bus and taxi.

Figure 3.5. Beyazıt Medrese superposed with its lot in aerial photo 2013 (IMM)

101
 Figure 3.6. Beyazıt Medrese around 1940's (Archive of Istanbul Ist.RDF)

3.1.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

Beyazıt Medrese was one of the most important medreses of Istanbul and was an
“Ellili”49 medrese. The muderrises of it were very important scholars within
sheyhulislams, like Zembilli Ali Efendi and İbn Kemal (Eyice-1 1994).

In this section, the original architectural features of the Beyazıt Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: The medrese was a rectangular building with U type layout (Figure 3.1. and
3.7.). It was 36.63 x 43.90 m from outside. It had a monumental main entrance opening
through Beyazıt Square on north-east façade (Figure 3.8.). The medrese was

49
“Ellili” medrese (see Chapter 2.1.)

102
surrounded with a garden wall and a garden entrance originally (Figure 3.15. and
3.20.).

Figure 3.7. Original plan of Beyazıt Medrese, Restitution by Halil Onur, 2007
(Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)

Figure 3.8. Original entrance facade of Beyazıt Medrese, Restitution by Halil Onur,
2007 (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)

Courtyard and Revaks: Inside the medrese there existed a landscaped courtyard of
33.35x17,62m. Approximately 3 m width revaks surrounded the courtyard from three
sides. Revaks were carried by stone masonry pillars (Figures 3.7. and 3.9.). An

103
ablution fountain, a well and two historical sun clocks were in the courtyard. (Figures
3.10. and 3.11.).

Figure 3.9. B-B Section, Restitution by Halil Onur, 2007 (Archive of Istanbul Ist.
RDF)

Figure 3.10. New uses of spaces in approved restoration plan and original
architectural elements in the courtyard, by Halil Onur (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)

104
 Figure 3.11. Courtyard; from classroom (SECTION VI) 2015

The Rooms: There were 19 rooms and a small eivan between the rooms opening to
the revaks (Figure 3.7.). Except for corner rooms, rooms were about 3.60x3.70-3.90m.
Corner rooms were rectangular and 3.75x5.40-5.60-5.75-5.80 m. In ordinary rooms, a
couple of students were staying, while in the corner rooms were for four students
(Kütükoğlu 2000). Rooms had two rows of windows facing through outer garden. In
the bottom were two windows and one at the top. A fireplace, cupboards and niches
from 2 to 5 existed in each room (Figure 3.7. and 3.12). Corner rooms were different;
they had three bottom windows. The room at the north-west corner was connected
with the next room according to restitution project prepared by Halil Onur. (Figure
3.7.).

Figure 3.12. Typical room window order of the Beyazıt Medrese (detail from Figure
3.8.)

105
Classroom and Eivan: The classroom was 7.34x7.40m and eivan was 3.74x4.50m.
Classroom was located at the short edge of the rectangular building, opposite to the
main entrance and 43 cm stilted from the courtyard level. It had 19 windows in total;
on the south facade three windows at the bottom line, three at upper;

and on the other facades two windows at the bottom and three at the upper line. The
eivan had three windows in two lines similar to the rooms’ window order. In addition,
the classroom had a bookcase with wooden covers and had a mihrap niche on the east
wall (Figures 3.7., 3.9., 3.13. and 3.14.).

Classroom, eivan, rooms and the revaks were covered with domes. On the south-east
wing, there was a small exit at the end of a 1,52m width corridor (Figure 3.7.).

Figure 3.13. (Left). Classroom; Figure 3.14. (Right). Eivan (designed

entrance door and inside, 2015 as a cafeteria), 2015

3.1.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Beyazıt Medrese will be documented

chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and

106
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In the past, the medrese had numbers
of rehabilitation interventions. Just after it had been built, it had almost completely
collapsed with an earthquake called “small droomsday” in 1509, and rebuild
immediately (Kütükoğlu 2000). During the 19th century, sanitary installations and
lead covers of the domes were repaired several times. In 1902, the classroom was
repaired (Kütükoğlu 2000).

Until 1915, the medrese was still active but it was in a slightly poor condition (Eyice-
1 1994, Kütükoğlu 2000, p. 88). In 1918, the educational function was ended due to
the heavy conditions of the First World War. In this period, fire survivals were staying
in the medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000, p. 88).

The medrese started to be reused as a city museum and library by Istanbul Metropolitan
Municipality in 1939 (Kütükoğlu 2000, p. 88). In 1943 it was still in use as a city
library (Eyice-1 1994).

There was no document about the framework installation closing the revaks, but they
were first seen in a 1970 dated reuse plan of the medrese (Figure 3.15.). According to
this plan, entrance eivan was used as ticket and publications selling section, three
rooms on the east side of the entrance eivan were used for administrative purposes,
and two rooms at the west side for workshops, one room was used to present
ethnographic medrese use, rooms at the south end of both revaks were storage. Rest of
the rooms were exhibition galleries of calligraphic plates, Korans, manuscripts and
textile works embroidered with calligraphies. Eiwan was used for exhibiting the tugras
(Sultans’ signatures), all the revaks for stone pieces engraved with calligraphy and
classroom was used for relics works. The toilets that had being still actively used were
also drawn in this project.

107
 Figure 3.15. Plan of Beyazıt Medrese, 1970 (archive of IRDF)

In 1981, library was moved to a new building, and since 1983 Beyazıt Medrese had
been using as Foundation Calligraphy Arts Museum by the owner instutituon, General
Directorate of Foundations (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.88).

In 03.02.2010, the medrese was asked for granting by European Capital of Culture
Agency for a refunctioning project, however this demand was rejected by the owner
institution because of the continuing restoration process.

The Last Refunctioning Work and Interventions: When the site survey was done
in 2016, Beyazıt Medrese was in adaptive restoration process to renew the existing use
as Foundation Calligraphy Arts Museum.

The last interventions were between 2013-2016 without changing the museum
function. Interventions aimed to modernize the exhibition components and spaces as
well as to rehabilitate and restore the historic building (Figure 3.16.). In the museum,
3638 movable cultural assets, including calligraphic plates, relic works and
manuscripts were exhibited in the classroom, in revaks and 9 rooms of the medrese.

108
The classroom was used for relics works exhibition, rooms and revaks for calligraphic
art crafts. 2 rooms were used as seminar rooms for visitors. 3 rooms at the south end
of the building and the revaks in front of them, as well as the 2 rooms at the left and
right sides of the entrance eivan were reserved for administrative and office uses. 3
rooms at the west corner and the revaks in fornt of them were used as secondary
services and workshops. Eivan was used as cold drink buffet. All the revaks were used
for both circulation and exhibition of the stone works. The frameworks closing the
revaks were kept by renewal to get a comfortable circulation between the museum
sections (Figures 3.16., 3.17. and 3.18.). Fritt texture was applied on the glass on the
renewed framework for better sunlight control. The window shutters of all sections
were also kept closed for sun light control and 2.30m height exhibition panels placed
in front of the windows (Figure 3.18.). Revak parts used for different purposes such as
–administrative meetings and workshop- were also separated with frameworks from
the circulation area. Despite all these, to reach the relics works section located at the
classroom, it was necessary to go outside. The circulation scheme forced to enter inside
to reach the other exhibition section (Figure 3.16). Existing wc unit for staff, which
was located underground at the south end of the courtyard, was rehabilitated (Figures
3.16. and 3.19.).

During the restoration, all the plasters, floor pavements and dome leads were renewed.

109
 Figure 3.16. Plan showing the refunctioning of the spaces and interventions of
Beyazıt Medrese; underground toilets in the courtyard, at the right bottom according
to the applied restoration interior design plan by Paralel 41 Architecture in 2010
(archive of Yılmaz Yapı, the contractor)

Figure 3.17. Plan and sections according to the Interior Design Project by Paralel 41
Architecture (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)

110
 Figure 3.18. Revak interventions in restoration project by Paralel 41 Architecture
(Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF)

Figure 3.19. Section B-B of the Restoration Project by Halil Onur, (Archive of DGF)

The decisions of the Istanbul I. Regional Conservation Council played important role on the
reuse implementations history of the medrese. In 1986-1989, DGF demanded to install a
hot-water heating system to protect the sensitive objects in museum and wanted to build a
heating center in the courtyard, in a symmetrical position to the existing toilets (Council IV
archive document 1, 2). Council I Decision 1989/1367 had rejected the proposed heating
system and decided an air conditioning project to be prepared compatible with the museum
function. The council also decided to return back to the original revak features, however
there were no project or proposal about it. 18 years later, with the Council IV Decision
2007/1630, except for interior design projet, all the measured drawings, restitution and
restoration projects with details renewing the frameworks were approved. Museum
Exhibition Plan (Figure 3.10.) had been approved with the Council IV Decision 2009/3005.

111
During restoration implementation phase, some revisions were requested on museum
interior design project in the Council IV Decision 2011/4312. According to the decision
2011/4312, exhibition panel proposals were revised as movable units made of transparent
glass with wooden base, with respect to the character of the building. The decision
2011/4312 had also asked for some revisions on reuse of spaces. It was adviced to place
security office and entrance control inside the building and to use the eivan as a cold drink
buffet instead of cafeteria. Finally, applied interior design project was approved with the
Council IV Decision 2011/4396 (Figures 3.16 -3.19).

In addition, following the owner institution’s request concerning the security of the museum
(archive document of DGF date/no; 15 September 1993/1662), necessity of preparing a
reconstruction project for old garden walls and entrance door was decided by Council I
Decision 1993/5092 (Figures 3.20. and 3.21). However, the garden wall reconstruction
project (Figure 3.22.) was accepted 16 years later with the Council IV Decision 2009/2713,
with the condition of “evaluating it within the Beyazıt Square rehabilitation project”.

Figure 3.20. Beyazıt Medrese and original garden walls before demolishing in 1950's
(archive of Yılmaz Yapı)

112
 Figure 3.21. Chadastral situation of Beyazıt Medrese and its neighbourhood until
1950s (Archive of Istanbul Ist. RDF).

Figure 3.22. Reconstruction Project for the garden walls of Beyazıt Medrese by Halil
Onur (archive of Yılmaz Yapı)

113
With the last interventions of 2013-2016 revaks were heated by convectors and other
spaces by wrf system. Electric and heating lines were placed in a channel alongside
the revaks, passed across the courtyard under floor, and connected to the interior
heating units and exhibition panels whenever they needed (Figures 3.16. and 3.18.).
For illumination of the exhibition panels in revaks, original iron tension rods were used
to carry the spots and the electric lines (Figure 3.18.). Existing pavements in all spaces,
all the plasters and lead covers of the domes, which were not original, were renewed
one more within the scope of the final restoration interventions.

114
3.2. Atik Ali Paşa Medrese (1508-1509)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Atik Ali Paşa Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Atik Ali
Paşa Medrese were documented first for better understanding and comparison.

3.2.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Atik Ali Paşa
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was part of Atik Ali Paşa Complex. According to 915H (1509)
dated foundation charter; the complex was built between 1508-1509 (Eyice-3 1991).
It consists of a mosque, a medrese, a caravanserai (Elçi Han, Ambassador Khan), an
imaret, a tekke- hankah (dervish lodge), shops (Eyice-3) a primary school and a
fountain (Yüksel 1993) (Figure 3.23.). The tomb located in front of the mosque was
not part of the complex (Yüksel 1993), it had been added later and not belong to the
donor (Eyice-3). The complex was located in old Forum Constantin, the great Forum
Constantin Square of Byzantine Period (Eyice-3) (Figures 3.23.-3.25.), of which some
of marble columns surrounding it were reused in the construction of the complex
(Eyice-3).

Figure 3.23. Site Plan showing 16th century situation (Cerasi 2004)

115
Figure 3.24. Location of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese in Behçet Maps, 1846-1847 (Atatürk
Library)

Figure 3.25. Çemberlitaş, Column Constantin, and Atik Ali Paşa İmaret and Mosque
behind it in Barlett’s Gravure, in 1800s (Anonymous)

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2015:

In 2015, the mosque, the medrese, the primary school, some of shops and the fountain
were still exist. The caravanserai had been demolished in 19th century; (Eyice-3) and
a great office building was located on its lot in 2015. The imaret and tekke- hankah
had completely been demolished at the beginning of 21th century (Eyice-3) and were
landscaped as public area. The mosque was still active, primary school is used as
imam’s lodging building, but the fountain is not work.

116
Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was a self-standing building which was very close to the
Çemberlitaş, the old Column Constantin. Entrance of the medrese was from
Yeniçeriler Street (old Divan Yolu Street) which was one of the main important
pedestrianized touristic axis of the historic peninsula of Istanbul. Around the medrese,
Çemberlitaş (Column Constantin) (Figure 3.25.), Atik Ali Paşa Mosque with its
graveyard, primary school and fountain of the complex, Grand Bazaar, Koca Sinan
Paşa Medrese with its complex, Çemberlitaş Hamam, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa
Medrese, Çorlulu Ali Paşa Medrese, Köprülü Mehmet Paşa Medrese, Nuruosmaniye
Complex and many of historic places, touristic hotels, shops, cafe- restaurants, socio-
cultural and commercial buildings were existed. In front of the medrese, was tramway
line and a tramway stop.

In 1792, 24 people were staying in Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, two of them were in the
classroom. In that date 10 people were staying alone in their rooms, 4 people were
staying sharing the rooms with their friends or brothers helping them for housekeeping.
In 1869, 46 students were registered. As the upper floor rooms wider than the ground
floor rooms, 3 or 4 students were staying in upper rooms. During the 1914 inspection,
9 additional barracs were detected, each of them for one person and 60 students were
registered. Atik Ali Paşa Medrese had been used until 1916-1918. In 1918 it lost the
original function. Since then, it was using by foundations (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.104).
Firstly, the medrese was used by Turkey Teachers Association –Türkiye Öğretmenler
Birliği-, which was active between 1920-1936 (Öğretmenler Vakfı), for a short time,
(Kütükoğlu 2000, p.106) used by National Turkish Students Association –Milli Türk
Talebe Birliği- that was active between 1916 -1980, for a long time and has been using
by Birlik Foundation (established in 1985) for years (Birlik Vakfi). In 2014, the
foundation renewed the granting procedure for next 10 years to use the medrese for
social-cultural activities with condition of restoration (DGF document-14).

In 2015, the Birlik Foundation was using the medrese for social-cultural activities
determined in its charter; scholarships for students, weekly cultural and academic
meetings, language and handicrafts training courses, meetings of determined 16
commissions and profession clubs, traditional Ramazan feast dinners for hundreds of
invitees and certificate ceremonies for trainees. The headquarter also coordinated 36
divisions of the foundation in different cities (Birlik Vakfi).

117
3.2.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Atik Ali Paşa Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was a rectangular one-storey building with a courtyard
in original. The revaks surrounded the courtyard from four sides and behind revaks 16
rooms in U plan scheme and a classroom in the middle of U in original (Figure 3.26.).
Entrance and classroom were in the middle of the facades and on the same axis.
According to restitution report prepared by Artlite Mimarlık in 2012, the original wc
and laundry place were in the backyard of the medrese. In the layout, the medrese kept
its original dimension only on the north façade. This façade was 37.20m in width from
outside.

The medrese was made with alternate masonary walls; exposed from backyard sides,
plastered from revak facades. The street façade was covered with fine cut stone
(Figures 3.27.-3.29. and 3.34.). All the rooms, revaks and classroom had led covered
domes.

118
 Figure 3.26. Original plan of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, between 16th-19 th century.
(1st period restitution plan by ArtLite Architecture, 2012)

Figure 3.27. (left) Main enrtance and courtyard, 2011 (before restoration)
Figure 3.28. (middle), Classroom entrance and revaks, 2015
Figure 3.29. (right), Medrese from East-West, 2015 2015

Courtyard and Revaks: Atik Ali Paşa Medrese had a courtyard entrance in original.
The original width of the courtyard was 18,23m in front of the classroom. Revaks
were 3.80 m width in the layout.

The Rooms: All the rooms were about 3.70x3.70m. (Approved Restitution Project of
Artlite Architecture, 2012) Each of them had three windows facing through outside,
two were lower, one was upper. Corner rooms had extra two windows, one was at

119
lower and one was at upper (Figure 3.30.). Each room had a fireplace and niches in
different sizes (Figure 3.31.). The rooms covered with domes.

Figure 3.30. Ground floor rooms window order, 2015

Figure 3.31. Original ground floor rooms' niches, and original fireplace, 2015

The Classroom: According to approved restitution project drawn by Artlite

Architecture in 2012, the classroom was 7.33x7.36m. It is 30 cm higher than the
revaks, so there is two steps in front. It has six lower windows, two of them open
through revaks and four upper windows on backyard (Figure 3.32.).

120
Figure 3.32. Original classroom – revaks relation (from Restitution Project drawn by
ArtLite Architecture in 2012)

3.2.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Atik Ali Paşa Medrese will be documented
chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Atik Ali Paşa Medrese has been
repaired many times in its history affecting with fires in 1587, 1633-1634, 1652 and
1865, affecting with earthquakes in 1648, 1894 (Eyice-3 1991) and 1914 It was also
repaired resulting in deterioration in 1916.

The medrese was radically changed around 1880’s as a result of urbanization works;
that is street widening (Yüksel 1993) and tramway construction (Kütükoğlu 2000,
p.104). In this change, four of rooms and entrance garden wall of the medrese were
cutted Instead, four rooms were symmetrically added upstairs with revaks in front of
them. Upper rooms figured out 19th century architectural fashion in general; they had
3 or 4 bigger windows in one level (Figure 3.35.). Their fireplaces and niche orders
were also different (Figures 3.36 and 3.37.). Upper floor revaks were closed with a
framework originally (Figure 3.34.). In this intervention main entrance door, as garden
wall, was rebuilt on the same axis with the 19th century architectural style (Figures
3.33. and 3.34). Thus, the street façade of the medrese became a two-storey building
but total numbers of rooms have no change. Wc and ablution fountain were still active
in 1916 (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.105). In the result of this intervention, the medrese had

121
kept the numbers of room and the U type layout. However, in the layout the building
was 37.20 x 21-19.30 m from outside, the courtyard was 18.23 x 9.57-10.35 m and
lower than the street about 1.18 m after the rehabilitation.

The medrese had some repairs, rehabilitations and changes between 1918-2013 by the
owner institution. Between 1951-1953, lead covers of domes and plasters were
repaired. (DGF document-1) In the photo showing the situation in 1975 and according
to archive documents, the medrese was unused, there was no decoration inside, it was
needed to get its measured drawings and the drawings were done in 1975 (DGF
document-2, 3) (Figure 3.33.) but the electric installations had been done formerly
(Figure 3.34.). Moreover, a window had been altered to a door to reach backyard in an
unknown date (Figure 3.38.).

Figure 3.33. Measured Drawing of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, 1975 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.34. Atik Ali Paşa Medrese in 1975 (archive of DGF)

122
Figure 3.35. Upper floor rooms window order, 2015.

Figure 3.36. Upper rooms fireplace, 2015.

123
Figure 3.37. Upper Floor Plan, Ground Floor Plan and Section of applied restoration
project, 2012 (ArtLite Architecture)

124
 Figure 3.38. Window alteration in the room next to the classroom after 1975
interventions in unknown date, 2015

After 1975 ground floor revaks were closed with framework to get extra space (Figure
3.27. and 3.40.), kitchen and users/staff restaurant had been added to the backyard.
Backyard is also begun to be used as car park area (Figure 3.41.).

Figure 3.39. Courtyard and revaks in 2011

125
 Figure 3.40. Courtyard and revaks in 2011

Figure 3.41. Ottoman alterations and unqualified additional spaces applied on

measured drawing of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese by ArtLite Architecture, 2013.

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: When the site survey was done
in 2016, Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was in adaptive restoration process to renew the
existing use as the headquarter of Birlik Foundation.

The last repair of the medrese was a comprehensive adaptive reuse restoration held
between 2014-2016. It was based on measured drawings, restitution and restoration

126
projects that were approved with the Cultural Assets Conservation Council IV
Decision no 2013/1442. The decision also ended the car park use of the backyard.

In accordance with the restoration report, during the 2014 and 2016 restoration;
existing function was kept, the architectural and historic character of the medrese was
conserved by removing all the additions and minimum interventions were done as
simple repairs (Restoration Report of GAAPM, 2012). Altered wc space by users in
northwest corner of ground floor was remained. All the original openings and
architectural elements aimed to be kept, meanwhile, altered window in ground floor
was also kept for direct connection with the backyard (Figure 3.42.). Original
fireplaces and chimneys, which had been closed or demolished formerly, were repaired
as original (Figures 3.37., 3.42., 3.36. and 3.31.). As 19th century alteration, upper
floor revaks’ framework would be reconstructed considering old photos (Figure 3.42.),
additional ground floor revak frameworks were removed (Figure 3.44.). Existing
electric wires, plates, receivers, loudspeakers and other installations visible on facades
were removed and the cables were renewed by lying down in an installation channel
surrounding revaks (Figures 3.42 and 3.43.).

127
Figure 3.42. The last repair installations, applied on restoration project of Atik Ali
Paşa Medrese prepared by ArtLite Architecture, 2013.

128
Figure 3.43. Fire supression (left) and electrical (right) system projects, 2013 (Evitan
Engineering)

Backyard was excavated about 30-40 cm to reach original garden floor level and a
ramp would be built to reach the backyard from Yeniçeriler Street (Figure 3.45.).
Kitchen, wc and technical spaces were built at the backyard as an additional prefabric
building (Figures 3.42. and 3.46.). In the restoration report it was also stated that “…
awaring of the authenticity of the cultural asset in order to leave it to next generations,
it was essential to adapt us to the building, not the building to us, but in a moderate
way.” (Restoration Report of GAAPM, 2012).

Figure 3.44. Courtyard from upper revaks in 2015

Figure 3.45. Medrese from East-West in 2015

129
Figure 3.46. Cafeteria as new addition in the backyard in 2015

130
3.3. Haseki Medrese (1539)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Haseki Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Haseki
Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.3.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Haseki
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Haseki Medrese was a part of Haseki Sultan Complex. The complex consisted of a
mosque (Haseki Sultan Mosque), a medrese, a primary school, a fountain, an imaret
and a hospital. It was built by the Kanuni Sultan Süleyman in two steps between 1538-
1550 or 1557 (Doğan, S. 1997) (Kuran, A., 1986, pg:40-41) (Alioğlu, F., 2012)
dedicated to his famous wife, haseki Hürrem Sultan.

Haseki Sultan Complex was the first masterpiece of Mimar Sinan and the mosque was
the first domed mosque of him (Measured Drawing Report, DF Mimarlık, 2006) and
the imaret was the first example of Ottoman imaret typology (Cansever, T. 2005). The
most important and unique building of the complex was the hospital (Fatih District,
1/1000 Conservation Plan Report, 2003). It had used as women hospital during the
Ottoman Period.

The complex was in the district which had been settled onto one of the most important
locations, called Forum Arcadius, of Byzantine Period (Figure 3.47.).

131
 Figure 3.47. Map of Istanbul showing the main axis and important points in
Byzantine Period (Muslubaş 2007)

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2015:

During the Ottoman Period, the district was a housing area with one or two storey
houses and small shops in ground floor levels (Figures 3.48-3.56.). The district had
different names coming from the important functions located around, like Başçı
Mahmud and Avratpazarı (women’s bazaar).

Figure 3.48. (left) Haseki Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th century (Kubilay
2010)

Figure 3.49. (right) Haseki Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848

132
 Figure 3.50. (left) Haseki Medrese and its complex in French Maps, 1900's

Figure 3.51. (right) Haseki Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913

Figure 3.52. (left) Aerial photo of the complex, 1960's (archive of DGF)
Figure 3.53. (right) Haseki Medrese, 1960's (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.54. (left) Haseki Mosque behind the Bayram Paşa Lodge on Haseki Street,
1960's (archive of DGF)
Figure 3.55. (middle) The only shop remaining from the old Avrat Pazarı (Womens'
Bazaar) next to the medrese, 1960's (archive of DGF)
Figure 3.56. (right) Imaret, 1964 (archive of DGF)

In 2015, the complex was in Haseki District that gave its name to a big hospital
complex, Haseki Hospital, which was located very close to the complex. In 2012 the
complex was within 3th degree conservation area (Conservation Plan Report, 2003).

133
Near the complex, was Bayram Paşa Complex with a medrese and a dervish lodge,
Başçı Mahmut Mosque, Cerrah Paşa Complex and Haseki Hospital (Figure 3.57.).

The medrese was a self-standing building opening through Haseki Street. It was in
connection with other buildings of the complex, except the mosque, connecting by a
secondary entrance (Figures 3.49-3.52.). It shared the lot with the primary school
(Figure 3.57.). Opposite the medrese, on the other side of the Haseki Street, was the
Haseki Sultan Mosque (Figures 3.57. and 3.58.).

Figure 3.57. Haseki Medrese with its lot in aerial photo 2013 (IMM)

134
 Figure 3.58. Site Plan (Archive of DGF)

Functional relation between the courtyard, revaks and closed spaces, direct connection
between other buildings of the complex, round shaped top windows of some rooms,
decorative design of main entrance and landcaped courtyard create architectural and
functional characteristics of the Haseki Medrese. Although the layout was not unique,
historical importance of the district, architectural and historical importance of the
complex, architectural and functional characteristics of the medrese make it special.

As the medrese had been affected with 1894 earthquake and 1917-1918 fire
(Kütükoğlu 2000, p.290-291) it had not been used since the fire till 1960’s. Since the
medrese had been abandoned, it had been repaired to being protected by municipality.
The first adaptive reuse of Haseki Medrese was between 1960-1973 for being
converted into a touristic hotel (Alioğlu 2012). In 1973, the medrese and other related
buildings of the complex was allocated to Presidency of Religious Affairs to be used
as training center for muftis and preachers. After a new rehabilitation work in 1974-
1975 (DGF document-5), the medrese rooms had been used as dormitory until 2010
by Presidency of Religious Affairs (Doğan 1997).

In 2007, the owner institution DGF prepared an adaptive reuse project for the
complex.50 New function of the imaret and the hospital were museum, the medrese
was “Institute of Mimar Sinan”, the primary school was meeting hall and cafeteria and

50
According to restoration project approved with the Council IV decision no 2007/1671, the complex
turned into a museum- institute complex.

135
the existing timber house which is next to the primary school was the administration
unit. Staff rooms and service spaces were designed at the place of previous additional
service space in East backyard of the medrese (Figures 3.58.-3.60.). The Haseki Street
between the mosque and the rest of the complex was pedestrianized (Figure 3.58.).

Figure 3.59. Applied restoration plan and staff rooms designed underground of the
backyard, 2012 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.60. Section C-C showing the staffroom underground of the backyard and
the additional garden wall, 2012 (archive of DGF)

136
With this new function, 10 of medrese rooms were planned as researchers’ offices, 3
as workshops, 2 storage-archive and 1 room was planned as wc for the institution. The
larger rooms were designed for two researchers, smaller ones for one person (Figures
3.61. and 3.62.).

Figure 3.61. Approved restoration plan, 2012 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.62. Detail A from Figure 3.59, showing interior design of a corner room.
(archive of DGF)

137
Following the completion of the last restoration between 2011-2012, the complex had
been allocated to the last user, Presidency of Religious Affairs. The function of the
complex had changed into the previous use, training center for muftis and preachers,
under the name of Haseki Reisulkurra Abdurrahman Gürses Religious Specialization
Center. Within the last reuse decision, the function of the medrese was changed into
the education center with a library. However, after during the reuse period, the use of
classroom rechanged into a classroom for Koran education, the rooms were reused as
teachers’ offices and for some certain service needs, such as; staff rooms and storages.

In site surveys of June 2015 and April 2016, the medrese and other buildings of the
complex were empty, but the security and administration were active. Haseki Street
was not yet pedestrianized.

3.3.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Haseki Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: According to foundation charter, 16 studends, a muderris, a muid (assistant)

and a bevvab (door keeper) were assigned in the medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.290-
291), however the rooms were assigned only for the resident students (Charter 2).

Haseki medrese had a self-standing squared and symmetrical layout. It is a U plan type
medrese. There was a courtyard in the center and a revak surrounding the courtyard
from four sides. 16 rooms surround the revaks from three sides and a classroom in the
middle of the symmetry axis (Figure 3.63.). This layout seemed like original Atik Ali
Paşa Medrese. Main entrance was in the middle of South revaks and opened through

138
the Haseki Street (Figures 3.49., 3.53. and 3.64.). The entrance was on the symmetry
axis and opposite the classroom. Different from Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, there were two
symmetrically located small corridors on East and West wings (Measured Drawing,
DF Mimarlık, 2006). The small corridor on West side connected the medrese to imaret,
hospital and primary school, and the east corridor was a narrow niche. (Doğan, S.
1997) (Figure 3.63.). In 1960’s, the East corridor was opened through the east garden
for additional underground service spaces (Figure 3.73.). Original toilets and laundry
were at out of medrese in backyard where imaret side (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.290).

Figure 3.63. Original Plan of Medrese (Ülgen 1962)

139
 Figure 3.64. Entrance facade on Haseki Street, 1960's (archive of DGF)

The medrese was made of exposed cut stone from outside. The revak facades and inner
spaces were plastered. The rooms, revaks and the classroom were covered with domes,
corridors were covered with vaults. Columns in revaks were typical monoblock white
marble except for one that green porphire reused column. All the capitals were made
from white marble with two different style, baklava and lotus. Facades of the medrese
and the mosque were decorated with tiles in original, however, during the abandoned
years at the beginning of the 20th century, most of the tiles were stolen, some of them
saved for security. In 2015, the tile made inscription panels of mosque and medrese
were in Çinili Köşk (Doğan, S. 1997).

According to approved measured drawings, the medrese was 33x29 m from outside
and about 5 m. in height. Width of the walls were 1m.

Courtyard and Revaks: The landscaped courtyard was 16x16m. There was no
şhadırvan, that is ablution fountain, in the courtyard but two wells in revaks (Figures
3.63., 3.65. and 3.66.). Width of the revak was 3.35m in average (in range of 3.31 and
3.41 m).

140
Figure 3.65. Revaks; secondary entrance and room entrances, 2015

Figure 3.66. Stone made well ring, 2015

141
The Rooms: Rooms are approximately 3.3x3.3m and the classroom 6.75x6.75m.
Height of the rooms were 4.5m and height of the classroom was 7.84m up to the dome
profile.

The rooms were squared and approximately 10m2. Each had a small wooden kündekari
door, opening through revak. Rooms had two bottom windows and a top window on
outer façade (Figures 3.60. and 3.47.). Each room had a fireplace and rectangular
niches in different sizes (Figures 3.67. and 3.68.). Corner rooms, except for northeast
one, had extra windows looking through two facades. The window orders of the two
rooms that facing through the primary school were different (Figure 3.69.). There were
also two small spaces above the west and east corridors with small rectangular
windows (Figures 3.60. and 3.70.). It was reached these rooms through small
rectangular openings in ceilings of the corridors with a portable ladder.

Figure 3.67. Typical room; its architectural elements and installations, 2015.

Figure 3.68. Typical room; its architectural elements and installations, 2015.

142
Figure 3.69. South-west room's windows from west (from outside) and inside, 2015

Figure 3.70. Section D-D (archive of DGF)

The Classroom: The classroom was 45,5 m2. It is 33 cm high from the revaks level
(Figures 3.59., 3.70. and 3.71.). The classroom had six rectangular bottom windows,
two of which look through revaks, and four arched top windows (Figures 3.59., 3.60.,
3.70. and 3.72.). There were also two niches with kündekari covers as big as the bottom
windows but no mihrap niche inside.

143
 Figure 3.71. Courtyard, revaks and the classroom, 2015

Figure 3.72. Classroom (library); architectural elements and installations. 2015

3.3.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Haseki Medrese will be documented

chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Within 1960-1973 restoration,

toilettes and service space were added in east backyard of the medrese (Measured
Drawing Report, DF Mimarlık, 2006) (Alioğlu 2012) and the outer wall on east

144
corridor was altered for a new service door needed by the hotel function (Figures 3.73.
and 3.70.).

Figure 3.73. Plan and section drawings for wc space and door additions in 1960's
(archive of DGF)

All the plasters were renewed with cement-based plasters, all the frameworks were
reproduced as in original and all the lead covers of domes were recovered (DGF
document-4) (Figure 3.74.). Electric installations according to project where in the
archive of DGF prepared in 1961, mechanical projects for radiator system with hot
water in 1967 and sanitary installation project drawn in 1969 were loaded all the rooms
and the classroom for new hotel use. However, as the residents complained and
rejected the new use in the district, the building could not be used as hotel.

During the last use between 1973-2010, some unqualified but removable additions had
been attached to the medrese, such as framework cabins in revaks.

Figure 3.74. North facade before and after 1960’s restoration (archive of DGF)

145
The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: When the Haseki Medrese was
surveyed in 2015, the reuse decision and the user had just been rechanged following
the completion of the restoration. The medrese would be reused under the name of
Haseki Reisulkurra Abdurrahman Gürses Religious Specialization Center by The
Presidency of Religious Affairs, as the previous function and the previous user.
However, except for the timber building refunctioned as administration office, the
medrese and the other masonry buildings of the complex werw unfurnished yet.

The last reuse intervention works was between 2011-2012 in accordance with the
Council IV decision no 2007/1671. In the same council decision, interior design and
installation projects (including air conditioning, CCTV and fire supression) were also
asked for new use and a research excavation for finding the original toilets’ place in
the backyard of imaret before restoration. Realisation of these decisions about interior
design project, garden Wall project, installation projects and research excavation
works were delayed to restoration period with the council IV decision 2009/3158.
Interior design Project of the medrese was aproved with the Council IV decision
2011/163. The restoration and mechanical rehabilitations were completed according
to these approved projects between 2010-2012 with slight functional changes (Figure
3.59.). All cement plasters were renewed with lime-based plasters and the hexagonal
brick pavements of the rooms and the classroom were changed with new ones.

Electric and fire alarm systems in all spaces, and air conditioning system cables in
rooms were hidden under plaster. Heating system (wrf) in classroom and fire
supression system (argon gas) in all spaces were underground. Heating center for the
whole complex was located in the hospital building, Argon gas tank was in the
backyard at North side of the classroom (Figure 3.59.). The installation channel was
digged surrounding the revaks for lying down the cables and the garden walls on East
boundry was constructed (Figures 3.59. and 3.70.).

146
3.4. Şehzade Mehmet Medrese (1547)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Şehzade Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Şehzade
Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.4.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Şehzade
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Şehzade Medrese was part of the Şehzade Mehmet Complex. The Complex was a great
group of building consisting a mosque, a medrese, a caravanserai, an imaret, a primary
school, a tomb (Kuban 1994, Orman 2010) and a bakery (Kütükoğlu 2000). It was the
first masterpiece as a big scaled sultan complex of Mimar Sinan. It was located on one
of the main axes of Istanbul connecting Beyazıt to Fatih in 16th century (Figure 3.75.).

Figure 3.75. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848

147
The most important building of the complex was the Şehzade Mehmet Mosque. It was
in a great garden at the hub of the complex. Plan type and scale of the mosque,
decorations of both the mosque and tomb with coloured stones and tiles were the most
expressive features of the complex (Figure 3.76.).

Figure 3.76. Axonometric drawing of the complex from restitution report by Anıt
Architecture (archive of DGF)

The medrese was directly open through the garden of the mosque. Other buildings
were out of the garden walls of the mosque, and the caravanserai was connected to the
garden walls from north, while the imaret and the primary school were opposite the
Dede Efendi Street (Figure 3.75.). All the buildings were made from cut stone. Some
of reused green porphire columns in different buildings of the complex were collected
from remains of old Forum Tauri (today Beyazıt Square) (Müller-Wiener 1977).

Şehzade Medrese was a self-standing building. Entrance of the medrese faced towards
the big and green garden of the Şehzade Mosque from south west. The medrese was
surrounded with a backyard from other three sides.

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2015:

Within the second half of 16th century and 17th century, some other tombs belonging
to important people of Ottoman Empire, (Kuban 1994, Müller-Wiener 1977)
fountains, sebils and a plumb rule (su terazisi), in 19th century a fire pool and a clock
adjusting place (muvakkithane) were added to the complex (Orman 2010).

148
Around the medrese was Şehzade Mosque with its tombs and graveyard within its
great outer garden, other individual buildings of the complex -tabhane, camel barn,
imaret and primary school- in the form of a group of building. A narrow street at south
east of the medrese separated it from the tabhane (Figure 3.75.). It was very close to
the ancient Roman Aqueduct at north east. Behind the Roman Aqueduct was Vefa
Distric with traditional houses. Burmalı Mescit Mosque with its district was also next
to the complex from north east in 16th century.

In 17th century, Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Paşa Complex, in 19th century historic
shops of Direklerarası (Figures 3.77. and 3.78.) and Vefa High School, in 20th century
Headquarter of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (Figures 3.75., 3.76., 3.79.-3.81.)
and touristic hotels were also added around the complex.

Figure 3.77. The Şehzade Mosque and the tomb from Direklerarası Street in an
engraving, 19th c. (anonymus)

149
Figure 3.78. Direklerarası Street and behind the minarets of Şehzade Mosque, at the
beginning of 20th century (anonymus)

Figure 3.79. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913

Figure 3.80. Şehzade Medrese with its complex in Pervititch Maps, 1934

150
Figure 3.81. The primary school, that is sıbyan mektebi, and the imaret (Kuban 1994)

In 2016, the complex was in Şehzadebaşı District. The name of the district had been
derived from the name of the complex. It was on the main axis connecting the Beyazıt
Square to the Fatih District and within one of the most important touristic zones of
historical peninsula of Istanbul including many of historical monumental buildings and
traditional houses. The complex was very close to the headquarter of Istanbul
Metropolitan Municipality, Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Paşa Complex, Vefa High School,
(Figures 3.75., 3.76., 3.79.-3.81.) some of historic shops of Direklerarası (Figures 3.77.
and 3.78.). The complex was also faced with the Şehzade Street and touristic
accommodational zone of and Laleli District which are full with the hotels. The medrese
was also very close to universities; Istanbul University and İbn Haldun University.

The entrance of the medrese faced through the big and green garden of the Şehzade
Mosque from south west. The medrese was surrounded with a backyard from other three
sides. Behind the backyard there was a green park –in 2016 Saraçhane Park51- and it was
very close to Roman Aqueduct at north east. Behind the Roman aqueduct was Vefa Distric
with traditional houses which were in poor condition. It was very easy to reach from
Şehzade Complex to the historic centers of Süleymaniye, Beyazıt, Aksaray, Zeyrek and
Fatih on foot.

Sarachane Park was a housing area until 1950’s, but during the street enlargement works on Atatürk
51

Avenue, the settlement was destroyed. Thus, the medrese has partially lost its environment.

151
The location, the importance of the architecture and the rich decorative features of the
complex were the main reasons for tourist attraction. In 2016, the medrese was also within
both “Süleymaniye Mosque and Surround World Heritage Site” which was one of the four
World Heritage Sites of Istanbul and “Süleymaniye Revitalisation Area” (Figure 3.82.).

According to foundation charter, one muderris, 16 students and 3 staff52 were allowed to
stay in Şehzade Medrese. In 1792, 27 people were staying at the medrese. In 1914, the
medrese was still active and it was reported that the medrese was capable of 25 people’s
residence (Kütükoğlu 2000).

Following the education system had been changed with Law of Tevhid-i Tedrisat in 1924,
the medrese was abandoned until 1960 and had been occupied by sellers (Figure 3.83.).
It had been used as a dormitory for female students by Turkish World Research
Foundation (that is Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı) with the decision of the Council of
Ministers in 1994 (decision no 94/5890) for next 10 years. Other buildings of the complex
(tabhane -that is guest house- and develik – that is camel barn sections of caravanserai-,
sıbyan mektebi -that is primary school- and imaret -that is public soup kitchen-) had been
used with different functions by different users around 1990’s (Kuban 1994).

Within the 1990’s allocation as dormitory, the medrese was used out of purpose without
any permission. In 1999, the medrese changed into a restaurant and two rooms next to the
classroom on south-east was allocated to another foundation by current user. Şehzade
Medrese was lastly granted to Suffa Foundation by DGF in 2010 to be used for social-
cultural and educational purposes for the next 10 years with the decision of the Council of
Foundations (decision no 514/379). The medrese would be used as socio-cultural center
(Restoration Project Report for Şehzade Medrede by Anıt Architecture) for both Turkish
and foreign university students aiming to cultural interaction and know-how. According
to interview made with the director of the user foundation in January 2016, the courtyard
of the medrese would be used for international fairs as a cultural activity for university
students and the classroom-m and rooms would be used for seminars and lectures.

52
This staff were muid (assistant), bevvab (door keeper) and kennas (cleaner)

152
 Figure 3.82. Süleymaniye Mosque and Surround World Heritage Site (Istanbul
Historic Peninsula Site Management Plan 2011)

Figure 3.83. Şehzade Medrese before 1960 (from Restoration Project photo albüm by
Anıt Architecture)

153
3.4.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Şehzade Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Plan layout of Şehzade Medrese repeated the layout of Semaniye Medreses
of The Fatih Complex (Charter 3). According to Ahunbay’s typology it has U plan
layout. The Medrese was a rectangular building with a large and rectangular courtyard.
According to approved restoration project, Şehzade medrese was 50.25x32.95m from
outside and 5.69m height up to the lead cover on the profiled stone. Width of the walls
differs; it was about 0.80m in rooms and revaks, 1.20m in classroom, 0.65 and 0.33m
in toilets.

The Courtyard, Revaks and The Entrance Portal: The courtyard was
31.13x19.95m. and surrounded with revaks from four side. In the courtyard, there was
an ablution fountain in the middle and a well in south east part, in front of the entrance
(Figures 3.84.-3.87. and 3.102.). Width of the revaks in short wings; north west and
south east, was 4.10m, and in long wings; north east and south west, was 3.40m.

154
Figure 3.84. Courtyard through South and the ablution fountain, 2015

Figure 3.85. Well, 2015

155
 Figure 3.86. Courtyard through North side, 2015

Main entrance was a high and decorated portal located in the middle of south west
façade, facing through the mosque side. On this façade there were no rooms, but
windows in revaks looking through the outer garden of the mosque (Figure 3.87.).

Figure 3.87. Restitution Plan of Shehzade Medrese. (Anıt Architecture 2012)

The Rooms: Behind the revaks, 20 rooms were located on three sides; the north west,
the north east and the south east. Rooms were about 3.65x3.70m., approximately 14

156
sqm of each. However, the corner rooms and the rooms next to them with diagonal
entrances were smaller, about 13.4sqm. Rooms had two windows facing through
backyard, one at bottom, one at upper with stucco frame and (Figure 3.88.). Only the
room where in east corner has four windows on two facades. Each room had only one
small niche (Figures 3.87. and 3.89.). Each room also had a fireplace (Figure 3.89.).

Figure 3.88. Original room window order, 2015

Figure 3.89. Fireplace in rooms, 2015

157
The Classroom and the Eivan: Opposite the main entrance of the Şehzade Medrese,
there was an eivan in the middle of north east façade. The eivan was 4.12x4.46m in
layout. It was 18sqm and 0.5m high from revak level and had the same window order
with rooms. Differently, it had two small niches (Figures 3.87. and 3.90.).

Figure 3.90. Eivan in Şehzade Medrese, 2015

The classroom was in in the middle of south east façade, between the rooms (Figure
3.87.). The dimensions of the classroom were 8.22x8.22m. It was approximately
66.25sqm and 0.39m high from the revak level. Revak level continued inside the
classroom 1.5m as shoe place (pabuçluk) and then there was a seki on two steps height.
Entrance of the classroom was decorated with coloured stones on revak façade and
decorated with cut stone stalactites inside. The classroom had six bottom windows,
two of them facing through courtyard and four upper windows decorated with stucco
frame and vitray (Figure 3.87.). The classroom had a mihrap niche decorated with
stalactites.

Toilets: On the north west façade there was a narrow and vaulted corridor connecting
the toilets and backyard to the medrese. Toilets were in original position and original
layout at the west corner of the medrese with five cabins (Figures 3.87. and 3.91.). It
was designed together with the mosque’s toilets and shared a common water depot

158
(Figures 3.87., 3.92. and 3.93.). In front of the toilets was a backyard (Figures 3.87.
and 3.102.).

Figure 3.91. Original toilets, 2015

Figure 3.92. Şehzade Medrese and the Mosque from North-West, 1959 ( archive of
DGF)

Figure 3.93. Site Plan from restoration project 2012 (archive of Anıt Architecture)

159
The medrese was made from fine cut stone. Revaks located in main entrance, revaks
in front of eivan and the classroom were exposed with their height. They had also
porphire columns (Figures 3.84., 3.86., 3.94 and 3.95.). Revak arches were made from
alternate-coloured stones and the façade finish was decorated with engraved stone.
Rooms’ facades behind revak side, inner spaces and toilets were plastered. Courtyard
floor was paved with cut stone, revaks and other spaces were paved with hexagonal
brick. All the roofs were covered with lead sheeted domes.

Figure 3.94. East revaks and main entrance, 2015

Figure 3.95. Classroom entrance, 2015

160
Being a part of one of the most important and big programmed Sultan complexes in
Istanbul, a direct connection to the big mosque’s green and great garden, having a semi
open eivan and a classroom within the same building, having a very large and stone
paved courtyard, having the original toilets, having some architectural decorations in
main entrance portal, classroom entrance, revak columns and engraved revak profiles
in different level were the character defining features of the medrese.

3.4.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Şehzade Medrese will be documented

chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Şehzade Medrese had been repaired
and rehabilitated numbers of times along its history. During the 16th and 17th
centuries, the complex had been affected numbers of fires and has been repaired
(Müller-Wiener 1977). In 19th century the medrese had also been repaired several
times rather for sanitary systems and rehabilitating of lead covers (Kütükoğlu 2000).
After a long-abandoned period, with the decision of High Council of Immovable
Heritage and Monuments, Şehzade Medrese was decided to be rescued by DGF
(decision date/number; 24 VII 1954/292 –archive of Cultural Heritage Council of
Rehabilitation Zone I). As a result of this decision, in 1956 the domes were covered
with cement finish (DGF document-7) and in 1960-1961 the revaks were closed with
a reversible metal framework which made from iron (Figures 3.96. and 3.97.).

161
 Figure 3.96. Drawing showing the metal framework addition closing the revaks of
Şehzade Medrese in 1960 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.97. Metal framework addition and heating system intallation in 1960 closure
of revaks of Şehzade Medrese (archive of DGF)

162
In 1999, while the medrese was allocated to be used as dormitory (DGF document-6)
the user made some unauthorized interventions while changing it into a restaurant
(Figures 3.98. and 3.101.).

Figure 3.98. Revaks of Şehzade Medrese in 2009 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.99. Courtyard of Şehzade Medrese in 2009 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.100. Interventions nailed to original masonry of Şehzade Medrese in 1990’s

(archive of DGF)

163
Figure 3.101. Floor addition in two rooms in the south corner of Şehzade Medrese in
1990’s (archive of DGF)

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: When the Şehzade Medrese was
surveyed in 2015, it was in restoration proggress for a new function to be used as
Social and Cultural Center of Suffa Foundation.

The last refunctioning interventions were made according to decision number

2012/468 of Ministry of Culture, Cultural Heritage Council of Rehabilitation Zone I.
With the decision of the council, measured drawing and restoration projects were
approved. In restoration project, reuse decisions of all spaces were also approved.
Acording to the approved project, classroom would be used as seminar room, two
rooms at west corner would be used as administrative office and kitchen. Rest of the
rooms and eivan would be used as gallery (Figure 3.102.). The revaks and the
courtyard would be used for circulation and temporary common activities.

164
 Figure 3.102. Plan of restoration Project (adapted from the approved restoration
Project prepared by Anıt Architecture), 2012

Figure 3.103. 3.90 Level Partial Plan of service backyard, restoration project, 2012
(Anıt Architecture)

During restoration works which were done between 2013-2016, minimum intervention
was made to reveal the architectural character of the medrese (Restoration Report of
Anıt Architecture). In restoration, additional metal frameworks closing both the revaks
and the eivan were removed, existing original toilets rehabilitated for males.

An additional building including toilets for female users, heating center and water
depot was built underground the service backyard at north side of the medrese (Figures
3.102. and 3.103.).

Cement plasters and cement finishes from recent repairs on revaks, rooms and
classroom walls and floors and cement finishes on the domes were changed with
suitable materials with originals, broken architectural elements –such as fireplaces,
windows, doors, chimneys, hexagonal brick pavements- have also been integrated
considering the original form and material. Electric and heating installations have been

165
installed into existing channel of past interventions surrounding the revaks (Figure
3.102. and 3.104.).

During the site survey in 2015, the restoration was about to be completed, but had no
interior design project yet. According to information getting from the director of the
user foundation Suffa, the interior design project would be prepared taking into accont
the interior design approach of Rabi Medrese in Süleymaniye Complex.

Figure 3.104. A-A Section of restoration project, 2012 (archive of Anıt Architecture)

166
3.5. Rüstem Paşa Medrese (1550)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Rüstem Paşa Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Rüstem
Paşa Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.5.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Rüstem Paşa
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Rüstem Paşa Medrese was an individual medrese building. It was not part of a
complex. The Medrese was donated by Rüstem Paşa53, who was both the grand vizier
and the son in law of Süleyman The Magnificent.

In Ottoman Period, the medrese was in between commercial and residential area.
According to the foundation charter of Rüstem Paşa, it was very close to Rüstem
Paşa’s own house, as well as to the khan built by him near his house (Charter 4).

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2015:

In 2016, Rüstem Paşa Medrese was in Sururi District, very close to the Sultanhamam
Square. Urban structure of the district was rather protected and streets were narrow as
in Ottoman Period (Figures 3.105.- 3.110.). Rüstem Paşa Medrese was in the junction
of Rüstem Paşa and Hoca Hanı streets. There were also narrow streets north west and
east west sides of the medrese. The entrance opened through Rüstem Paşa Street. In

53
Although he built important buildings – Rüstem Paşa Mosque with its very famous tile decoration in
Eminönü, numbers of khans, hamams and medreses in different cities of Ottoman territory-, Rüstem
Paşa had never built a complex. His tomb is next to the Şehzade Mehmet’s Tomb within Şehzade
Complex.

167
front of the entrance façade, there was small square used as a car park and a service
area by the merchants around it (Figures 3.108. and 3.109.). Around the medrese was
full of historic and contemporary khans used by merchants of drapery, textile, clothing
and accessory dealers. Historic Istanbul High School, Istanbul Governorate, Iran
Cosulate, historic Grand Bazaar, Nur-u Osmaniye Complex, famous and historic
shopping axis Mahmut Paşa Street and Mahmut Paşa Complex were important points
that were close to the medrese. Major function of the region was commerce. General
architectural and structural quality of surrounding was rather poor.

Rüstem Paşa Medrese was also within Historic and Urban Conservation Area of
Historic Peninsula of Istanbul with 12.07.1995 dated and 6548 numbered decision of
the Conservation Council IV of Cultural Heritage of Istanbul. However, the medrese
was slightly far from other active educational, cultural, touristic and recreative zones
of Istanbul.

Figure 3.105. Rüstem Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th c. (Kubilay 2010)

Figure 3.106. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848

168
Figure 3.107. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in German Blues, 1909-1913

Figure 3.108. (left) Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its complex in Pervititch Maps, 1934

Figure 3.109. (right) Site Plan restitution, referring to 16th century situation, by UB
Construction Limited Company, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.110. Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its lot in aerial photo, 2013 (IMM)

169
In 1727, 37 residents were staying at the medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000). 9 of those were
staying alone in their rooms, 9 of them were sharing their rooms with an assistant (for
house chores), other rooms were used by more than 2 people. In 1918 the education
ended due to heavy war conditions, then fire survivals occupied the medrese.54

The first refunctioning was in 1966, converting it into a dormitory for university
students and it began to be used by National Turkish Students Association. Until
1990’s the same function had continued.

According to archive documents of DGF, the medrese had been allocated to Istanbul
Governorate by DGF to be used together with The Foundation for Preparing the
Turkish Society to 2000’s and Research from Past to Today (Türk Toplumunu
2000’lere Hazırlama ve Dünden Bugüne Araştırma Vakfı) and Eminönü Town Social
Assistance and Cooperation Foundation (Eminönü İlçesi Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve
Dayanışma Vakfı) at the beginning of 1990’s. Within this granting, 5 rooms were
assigned to Turkish World Relative Communities Coordinatiorship (Türk Dünyası
Akraba Topluluklar Koordinatörlüğü), 24 rooms to Eminönü Town Social Assistance
and Cooperation Foundation. Classroom was the common activity area. However,
Turkish Society Foundation had rented the 5 rooms to a person and he made some
unpermitted interventions. Following an inspection report in 1999, this granting was
ended.

In 2001, the medrese had been allocated to Istanbul Governorate by DGF to be used
in accordance with the activities of Turkish World Relative Communities
Coordinatorship (Türk Dünyası Akraba Topluluklar Koordinatörlüğü) together with
Eminönü Town Social Assistance and Cooperation Foundation (Eminönü İlçesi Sosyal
Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Vakfı).

With the Foundations Council Decision, no 2009/339/312, the medrese was allocated
to Istanbul Science and Culture Foundation for next 10 years to be used for social,
cultural and educational purposes. In 2015, the medrese was used as the Headquarter
of Istanbul Science and Culture Foundation. In addition, two nailed inscription panels
on the entrance eivan expressed the name of the building as Rüstem Paşa Medrese and
the name of the new function as Bediüzzaman Said Nursi Museum.

In 1918, a big Ishakpasha Fire occured in Ishakpasha Dıstrict, around Sultanahmet and Hagia Sophia.
54

After this fire Sultanahmet area has completely changed as it is seen today.

170
3.5.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Rüstem Paşa Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Rüstem Paşa Medrese had a unique plan layout, as the donor expressed in his
foundation charter (Charter 4). Outline was squared, but inside an octagonal big
courtyard surrounded with revaks. Behind revaks 22 rooms, one classroom, one big
triangular space at a corner opened through the revaks and five eivans located as sofas
in between the rooms. The original toilets with service backyard were located. The
rooms of the building were different both in terms of size and shape (Figure 3.104.).
The medrese was also isolated from the street on east by means of a backyard
surrounded with a cut stone garden wall.

According to the approved restoration project by UB company in 2009, Rüstem Paşa

Medrese was 42.86x42.76m from outside. The medrese and outer garden walls were
made from cut stone with thick khorasan mortar (Figures 3.111. and 3.112.) and the
spaces were covered with lead covered domes. Courtyard was paved with rubble stone,
revaks and the entrance eivan were paved with cut stone (Figures 3.113.- 3.115.), the
other eivans and the spaces were paved with hexagonal brick (Figures 3.116.- 3.118.).
There was no information about the original pavement of the toilets.

171
 Figure 3.111. (left) Entrance facade (Wiener 1978)
Figure 3.112. (right) Entrance Facade from Rüstem Paşa Street, 2015

Figure 3.113. Courtyard pavement, 2015

172
 Figure 3.114. Revak pavement, 2015

Figure 3.115. (left) Entrance eivan

Figure 3.116. Eivan in the North corner, 2015

173
Figure 3.117. (left) Pavement of the room located at the east side of the south eivan,
2015
Figure 3.118. (right) Triangular space pavement, 2015

Courtyard, Revaks and the Entrance Portal: The octagonal courtyard was
24.11x24.17m. There was an ablution fountain in the middle of the courtyard (Figures
3.120. and 3.121.). Under the courtyard there was a cistern in between the fountain
and the entrance eivan. In the courtyard, there were also a few trees (Figures 3.119.
and 3.120.).

Figure 3.119. Approved restitution plan, referring to 16th century situation, by UB

Construction Limited Company 2009 (Archive of DGF)

174
 Figure 3.120. Rüstem Paşa Medrese Courtyard in 1937 (Eski İstanbul Resimleri)

Figure 3.121. Ablution fountain, courtyard and revaks of Rüstem Paşa Medrese,
2015

The revaks surrounding the courtyard were covered with 24 domes which were carried
by 24 columns. In revaks, upper part of the walls from impost line and the domes were
plasterd. All the columns carrying the domes of the revaks and the capitals were made
from Marmara marble, white and grey in color. The capitals had different decorations;
Turkish triangles, baklava and lotus shapes. Width of the revaks was in range of 3.61-
3.64m.

Entrance of the medrese was a big portal with the original inscription panel and opened
through the entrance eivan from south east (Figures 3.119. and 3.122.). The main
entrance portal’s height is 7.42m, that was higher than eave profiles’ level.

175
 Figure 3.122. Portal of Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015

The Rooms: The normal rooms were squared. However, some of rooms had
extensional spaces having different geometries due to restrictions of the layout.
Extensional spaces mostly had a role to get fresh air from outer façade. Some of those
had a window facing through the revaks and some of those had no window. Squared
rooms, or squared parts of the rooms, were approximately 14sqm. The rooms that had
extensional spaces were in range of 19-27sqm in total. Squared rooms were in range
from 3.61m up to 4.00m, approximately in dimensions of 3.76x3.80m.

As the result of unique layout, some of rooms had only one window at revaks side,
some of rooms had a window facing towards outside –where the street level was higher
than the rooms level-, some of rooms had windows on both sides, towards revaks and
outside. The corner rooms had windows on both outer walls, so they were well
illuminated. There were small top windows on outside facades above the bottom
windows (Figures 3.112. and 3.123.). The rooms had kündekari woodwork doors,
however, some of the doors had been changed in the past repairs. Each room had a
fireplace and one or two small niches (Figure 3.119.). The rooms located on both side
of the classroom had two fireplaces.

176
 Figure 3.123. South-East Facade, restoration project by UB Construction Limited
Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

The Classroom and Eivans: The classroom was squared and 7.50x7.43m in size,
59sqm. It was 0,37m higher than the revaks floor and the revaks floor was 0,09m
higher than the courtyard level. The entrance door was made from the original
kündekari woodwork and the arch at the top of the entrance was decorated with
alternate coloured cut stone having a rectangular cartouche made from marble. The
classroom had six windows, two of them were located both sides of entrance in a
symmetry (Figures 3.119., 3.124. and 3.125.). Other four windows faced towards
backyard and they had top windows decorated with colourful vitrays (Figure 3.126.).
It had a mihrap niche and two bookcase niches inside (Figures 3.127. and 3.128.).

Figure 3.124. Classroom entrance from revaks, 2015

177
Figure 3.125. Classroom from north east, 2015

Figure 3.126. Classroom interior, 2015

178
 Figure 3.127. (left). Classroom, bookcase, 2015
Figure 3.128. (right). Classroom, mihrab niche, 2015

The eivans were in different geometries. The entrance eivan and the south eivan were
in square shape, but the two eivans connecting small rooms to the revaks had triangular
extensions towards the rooms. The entrance eivan was 3.70x3.78m in size, the others
were also in approximate sizes.

The Triangular Space: According to Mübahat Kütükoğlu, the triangular space in

south corner was probably a kitchen in original (Kütükoğlu 2000). It was covered with
three domes; in the middle the bigger dome and on symmetric corners smaller ones
were located. Smaller domes had barrel lights at the top as typical in imaret buildings
or similar to tabhane buildings (Figure 3.111.). However, this space had no fireplace
or niches. It had six bottom windows like other rooms and six top windows, four of
those closer to the corner were round shaped (Figures 3.111., 3.123. and 3.129.).

179
 Figure 3.129. The triangular space in Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015

The toilets: The original toilets were at the west corner in a small backyard (Figures
3.119. and 3.130.).

Figure 3.130. An original toilet cabin in Rüstem Paşa Medrese, 2015

180
3.5.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Rüstem Paşa Medrese will be documented
chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: According to archive documents,

Rüstem Paşa Medrese was repaired in 1843, 1844 1868-1869, 1870, 1893, 1901, 1909
and 1911 (Kütükoğlu 2000). 1870 and 1909 repairs were about a room and the library
(Kütükoğlu 2000)55. The other repairs mostly included lead cover renewals, sanitary
system rehabilitations and repairs of jointing and wooden beams. Despite these often
repaires, the medrese was in a poor condition in 1914. In addition, the medrese had
been affected from a construction work made in neighbor lot which was extending to
the medrese’s lot in 1909 (Kütükoğlu 2000).

In 1962, the medrese was registered with the decision no 1962/1848 of the Supreme
Council of Cultural Heritage and in following years conservation works were done. In
1966, DGF decided to use the medrese as a dormitory as mentioned above and
prepared a project for closure of the revaks, however, Supreme Council of Cultural
Heritage rejected the closure of the revaks proposal. In 1967, the lot number 19 in front
of the medrese was turned into a car park area with a council decision.

In 1979, electric, heating systems were installed and 4 fire cabinets were added to the
medrese by DGF in accordance with the decision no 1979/11034 of Supreme Council
of Cultural Heritage. A heating center was also constructed in the service courtyard
located in the west corner (Figure 3.131.). Within the time, some additions had been
built in the medrese by the user; such as wall additions in triangular space, tile
coverings on masonry walls and the user also added a tent in the courtyard. The user
also attempted to build a restaurant in backyard of the medrese facing towards east
street, demolishing the garden door and wall. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality had
reported the attemption to the Istanbul Cultural and Natural Assets Protection Council

55
Although Kütükoğlu mentioned about the existence of a library depending on archive documents, she
never mentions about the location of it within the layout of the Rüstem Paşa Medrese.

181
I. That illegal change was also reported to the court. A conservation council decision
taken in 1999 with decision no 1999/11500, was about removal of that additions.

In 2001, some rehabilitation works on masonry were made and pavements and heating-
electric installations were renewed by users.

Figure 3.131. Additional service space as heating center in service backyard in 1979

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: When the Rüstem Paşa Medrese
was surveyed in 2015, it was used by the Istanbul Science and Culture Foundation as
the headquarter and Bediüzzaman Said Nursi Museum.
The last reuse interventions were made in accordance with the restoration project
approved by the decision number 2009-2617 of Ministry of Culture, Cultural Heritage
Protection Council IV. The functions of spaces were also decided in this approved
project (Figure 3.132.). Within the last intervention works; reinforcement of the
building56, architectural restoration on deteriorated and changed elements –plasters,
floor pavements, windows, doors, lead covers and metal elements-, electric and
mechanical interventions were done as a requirement of article 4i of the repair

56
According to a report prepared by the scholars of Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of
Construction in June 2010, in brief “Marmaray underground tunnel goes 70m below the Rustem Pasha
Medrese. Due to tunnel drilling works, a settling of 23mm has bben occured on the ground of the
medrese. This causes some slight facial cracs but as the prepared Project for medrese includes a
comprehensive reinforcement there will be no structural thread in the future.”

182
protocol57 and article 3i of the allocation protocol.58. Toilet space was reorganized
according to the approved project (Figure 3.133.); the small backyard was covered
with a roof and toilets’ floor was paved with marble (Figures 3.133., 3.138. and
3.139.). In the last restoration, fire precaution and security installations were also
applied (Figures 3.134. and 3.135.).

Figure 3.132. Plan, approved restoration project by UB Construction Limited

Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

After had being completed the restoration works, the use of some spaces was changed;
workshop use was completely cancelled, accommodation, restaurant and museum
functions were added (Figure 3.133.), one room refurnished as projection room (Figure
3.136.), interior design of the room which was used as a kitchen was changed and was
extended for broad participated dinner organizations in the courtyard (Figures 3.137.
and 3.140.).

In addition, despite the council decision 2009-2617, the chandelier places on the walls
were backed out and electric lines were extended to the domes in order to put big
chandeliers (Figures 3.126., 3.129. and 3.141.). Some of the architectural elements

57
25.09.2009 dated repair protocol of Rustem Pasha Medrese between DGF and Istanbul Science and
Culture Foundation.
58
01.06.2009 dated granting protocol of Rustem Pasha Medrese between DGF and Istanbul Science
and Culture Foundation.

183
were changed; a window was turned into a showcase in a room which was refunctioned
as gallery (Figures 3.142. and 3.143.). Fireplaces and niches in the rooms were either
stayed unfunctuned or using uneffectively for the purpose of storage, and some of were
furnished as bookcases, while some of were left just plastered (Figures 3.144.-3.150.).
Together with these post refunctioning interventions, the area in front of the medrese
was had still been using as car park in 2015 (Figures 3.133. and 3.151.).

Figure 3.133. Plan, applied restoration project by UB Construction Limited

Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

184
 Figure 3.134. Interventions in A-A Partial Section of restoration project by UB
Construction Limited Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.135. Interventions on South-East Facade, restoration project by UB

Construction Limited Corporation, 2009 (Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.136. The room next to the entrance eivan refurnished as projection room,
2015

185
 Figure 3.137. Service banch in revaks, in front of the kitchen, 2015

Figure 3.138. left. Roofing and marble pavement in women’s toilets, 2015
Figure 3.139. Electric and sanitary istallations in women's toilets, 2015

Figure 3.140. View of courtyard from entrance eivan, 2015

186
 Figure 3.141. (left) Chandelier and refurnishing in welcoming room, 2015
Figure 3.142. (middle) Window alteration in the east room, gallery, 2015
Figure 3.143. (right) Fireplace alteration in the west room, gallery, 2015

Figure 3.144. (left) Refurnishing and fireplace use in meeting room, 2015
Figure 3.145. (middle) Niche in the meeting room, 2015
Figure 3.146. (right) Reuse of meeting room, heater and lighting, 2015

Figure 3.147. (left) Reuse of a room as restaurant, reuse of its fireplace and a niche,
2015
Figure 3.148. (right) Fireplace and niches in the room used as a library, 2015

187
 Figure 3.149. Fireplace in the room used for security and control, 2015

Figure 3.150. Fireplace in the room used as seminar hall for women, 2015

Figure 3.151 Car park in front of the entrance façade, 2015

188
3.6. Rabi Medrese (1558)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Rabi Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2016 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Rabi
Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.6.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Rabi Medrese
will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse decision,
understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse decisions.

The Original Context:

Rabi Medrese was one of the seven medreses of Süleymaniye Complex and forth of
the symmetrically positioned well known four medreses of it.59 Süleymaniye Complex
was located at the top of The Second Hill of Istanbul. The complex was constructed
by Sultan Süleyman The Magnificent between 1554-1559 (Mülayim 2010). It was also
one of the most important masterpieces of the Architect Sinan and one of the most
important and the greatest complexes of Ottoman Period in 16th century.

Süleymaniye Complex consisted a mosque -Süleymaniye Mosque-, six medreses –

Evvel, Sani, Salis, Rabi, Tıp and Darülhadis medreses-, a primary school - sıbyan
mektebi -, a hkan, a darülkurra -Quran school-, an hospital -darüşşifa-, an imaret -soup
kitchen-, a guest house -tabhane -, shops and two tombs – the donor Sultan Süleyman
The Magnificent’s Tomb and his wife Hürrem Sultan’s Tomb- (Figures 3.152. and
3.153.). The complex was spread over 60.000sqm area (Mülayim 2010).

The Rabi Medrese was connetted to Salis Medrese in symmetrical layout and also both
medreses connected to Mülazımlar Rooms located at the lower ground. These three

59
Four symmetric squared medreses of Suleymaniye Complex are; the Evvel (First), the Sani (Second),
the Salis (Third) and the Rabi (Forth). The Evvel and the Sani medreses were located at Southeast side
of the Suleymaniye Mosque, the Salis and the Rabi medreses were at just opposite side, at Northwest.

189
buildings were designed in conjunction as a separate group and each had separate
gardens. The entrance façade of Rabi and Salis medreses faced to a narrow street
between the group and the Süleymaniye Mosque. Other streets surrounding the group
was also narrow.

Figure 3.152. Rabi Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848

Figure 3.153. Site Plan Restitution of Süleymaniye Complex by Architect Ali Saim
Ülgen, 1960's

190
Changing Context from Its Construction until 2016:

Rabi medrese was located on the slop of the hillside facing through Golden Horn just
below the Süleymaniye Mosque and used the advantage of panoramic wiev of Galata
(Figure 3.154.). The medrese was also within “Süleymaniye Mosque and Surround
World Heritage Site” which is one of the four World Heritage Sites of Istanbul (Figure
3.82.). Within the site, there were 960 listed heritage assets 195 of which -that is
approximately 20%- are foundation originated in 2016 (IHMR 2011, p.47). Rabi
Medrese was one of 195 foundation heritages of the Site.

Figure 3.154. Süleymaniye Complex and Rabi Medrese from Galata Tower in 19th
century. (Fatih Conservation Plan Report 2003)

In 2016, except for the mosque, tombs, hamam and shops, buildings of the complex
were using with new functions. Darüşşifa was using as a library, imaret was using as
a restaurant, the tabhane was using as an education center by presidency of Religious
Affairs, the darülkurra was using as imam’s office (EVOS) and the sıbyan mektebi,
primary school, was using as children’s library. Medreses had different functions in
2016 as well; Evvel and Sani medreses were using as manuscripts library, Salis
Medrese was using by Istanbul University for cultural and educational purposes,
Darülhadis Medrese was using for social-cultural activities by an association and Tıp
Medrese was under reconstruction in 2016.

191
Entrance of Rabi Medrese was on Mimar Sinan Street. Southeast side of the street was
the supporting wall of the northeast garden of the Süleymaniye Mosque. There were
also some small historical shops on both sides of the street (Figure 3.153.). At the
northwest end of the street was the Tomb of Mimar Sinan. On the southeast end of the
street was Süleymaniye Hamam and shops. The shops were rather souvenir shops for
tourists (Figure 3.158.). Except for the buildings of Süleymaniye Complex, around the
medrese there were big and small, historic and new shops, trade khans, accessory-
decoration-toys dealers, cafe-restaurants, historic Sheyhulislam’s Office building -in
2016 Head Office of Istanbul Mufti-.

Streets around the medrese were protected in terms of general character and width as
in Ottoman period (Figures 3.155.- 3.157.). In 2016, the area was both a touristic and
a commercial zone (IHCR 2003).

Figure 3.155. (left) Location of Rabi Medrese in 1909-1913 (German Blues)

Figure 3.156. (right) Location of Rabi Medrese in 1918 (Necip Bey Maps)

Figure 3.157. Rabi and Salis Medreses with their chadastral lot in aerial photo, 2013
(IMM)

192
According to foundation charter (Charter 6), Rabi Medrese was one of two medreses
built in southeast of the mosque dedicated to advanced sharia and scientific education.
The donor also expressed that he built 18 rooms for both good muslims and wise
lieutenants (mulazim) adjacent to both medreses. In 16th century 14 students, 1
muderris, 1 muid (assistant) and 4 staff were staying at each -Rabi and Salis- medrese
(Cantay 1989). In 1792 inspection, 4 additional rooms were in the medrese and 39
people were staying in total. The medreses were active until 1914-1918. In 1918, just
after the education had been ended due to mobilization, the medrese becomes derelict
and fire survivals occupied the medrese like most of the other medreses (Kütükoğlu
2000).

In 1961, DGF converted the Rabi and Salis medreses into a dormitory, according to
the council decision no 1961/1660. But the function could not be sustained. Then, they
were occupied by families around 1970’s and used for housing (Rehabilitation Council
I document-2). Street façade of the medrese was also invaded by additional shops
around 1960’s and 1970’s (Figure 3.158.). In 1990, DGF made a project proposal to
convert Rabi, Salis, Darülhadis medreses and Mulazimlar Rooms into a dormitory
once again. However, project proposal was rejected by Conservation Council I of
Istanbul Cultural and Natural Assets due to nonsuitability of the proposed function and
improperness of necessary additional service spaces. The rejection reason of the
council decision 1990/2056 was;

“As it is open to limited users, the function dormitory is not proper for the Rabi, Salis,
Mulazimlar and Darul Hadis medreses. As monuments of the Süleymaniye Complex
which is the most important monument of 16th century, they must be evaluated with a
worldwide function. This may be a cultural or cultural-commercial function which will
be open to public access; such as a place for handicrafts, manuscripts or book sellers.
Proposed two-storied additional wet spaces and service spaces under the backyard in
between Rabi and Salis medreses are not suitable, because they may give a damage to
the foundations of both medreses…..”.

Rabi Medrese had been unfunctioned until 2000’s together with Salis Medrese and
Mulazimlar Rooms (Kütükoğlu 2000). Salis Medrese and Mulazimlar Rooms were
used as the storage of stone made art works of Turkish and Islamic Art Works Museum
before 2015 (Kütükoğlu 2000, Rehabilitation Council document-1). Between 2012 and
2015, restoration works on Salis Medrese and Mulazimlar Rooms was continuing by

193
Istanbul Governorate. Salis Medrese was allocated to Istanbul University by DGF to
be used for educational purposes. It would be used as “Exhibition, Museum and
Research Center”. Mulazimlar Rooms was allocated to Turkish and Islamic Arts
Museum.

Figure 3.158. Historical shops on street facade and the portal of Rabi Medrese in
1973 (archive of Rehabilitation Council 1 of Istanbul)

Rabi Medrese was allocated to Türkiye Academy of Sciences (TÜBA) in 2001 to be

used for academic purposes with the condition of fulfilling all kind of restoration and
maintenance requirements of the medrese (Rehabilitation Council I document-3). In
2013, the allocation was extended for next 10 years.

3.6.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Rabi Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on

194
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Rabi Medrese was originally designed in connection with Salis Medrese and
Mulazimlar Rooms60. In 2016, they shared the same lot (Figure 3.157.). Rabi and Salis
medreses had the same layout but in symmetry. The layout was stepped following the
inclined topography (Figures 3.159. and 3.160.). This stepped layout had been used
before in Yıldırım Darüşşifa in Bursa in 14th century. (Eyüpgiller and Özaltın 2007,
p.203)

Rabi Medrese was a rectangular building including 20 rooms and a classroom. It was
37.60 x 36.82m except for entrance and wc wings. Inside the medrese there was an
inclined and stepped courtyard towards north east surrounded with revaks from three
sides. The rooms were located in different levels behind the revaks. The classroom
was in the middle of south west façade where the highest point of the building. This
layout formed the U plan type of the medrese. Rabi Medrese was connected with
Mulazimlar Rooms and Salis Medrese via the north corner room. A sheltered terrace
in front of two upper rooms of Mulazimlar Rooms located in between Rabi and Salis
medreses was a connection point of the three of the buildings (Figures 3.159. and
3.160.). Second doors of the symmetric end rooms of Rabi and Salis medreses opened
to these two symmetric upper rooms of Mulazimlar Rooms (Figures 3.173. and
3.174.). Two symmetric stairs in the terrace went down the Mulazimlar Rooms and its
courtyard (Figures 3.159. and 3.160.).

All the rooms, the revaks and the classroom were covered with domes, service space
was covered with vault. Entrance terrace was covered with wooden roof. Wooden roof
was carried by five short and round shaped grey marble columns with marble capitals
decorated with baklava motifs.

60
In some written sources, Mulazimlar Rooms were called as Mulazimlar Medrese. However, according
to foundation charter, these rooms assigned for religious, good and educated people to stay in a peace.
(Charter 6) In the charter, the definition “medrese” was not used for these rooms. Dr. Yasin Yılmaz
emphasized this expression of the charter that, “Mulazimlar Rooms have been built for graduated
students called “mulazim” to accomodate until they find a job”. (Yılmaz 2008, p.129)

195
The rooms and the sekis both in the classroom and revaks were paved with hexagonal
brick. The circulation spaces; the entrance, the revaks and the courtyard, as well as the
wet section in the classroom and toilets were paved with cut stone made of küfeki.

Figure 3.159. Approved restitution plan, referring to the16th century situation, by

Architect Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (Archive of KVKBK 2 )

Figure 3.160. A-A Section from approved restitution project, referring to 16th
century situation, by Architect Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (Archive of KVKBK 2)

196
Rabi Medrese was made from fine cut stone both on the outer and the courtyard
facades. The backyard facade facing to Salis Medrese was made from rubble stone
with brick infill and Khorasan mortar. The walls of the rooms on revak side were
plastered. Stepped revaks were carried with cut stone and squared pillars, north west
revaks were carried by two round shaped columns; one was made from Marmara
marble, one was reused red porphire (Figure 3.181.). Both of them had marble capitals
having different baklava shaped decorations. Red porphire column was located in a
symmetrical position with the similar one in Salis Medrese.

The Entrance Portal: Entrance of the Rabi Medrese was a big and decorated portal,
and the portal of Salis Medrese was the same (Figure 3.161.). It was higher than the
façade line and decorated with profiled cut stones. The entrance was located at the
south east corner of the backyard and opened through a sheltered terrace (Figure
3.162.). Entrance terrace was a kind of view point looking towards Galata part of the
city. On the south east corner of the terrace was the second entrance door opening
through revaks surrounding the courtyard (Figure 3.162.).

Figure 3.161. The main entrance, 2016

197
 Figure 3.162. Entrance revaks, 2016

The Courtyard and Revaks: As it was explained above, the courtyard was inclined
and stepped due to topographic features. In the courtyard, ablution fountains were
designed on the subbasement wall of the classroom, on the upper step of the courtyard
(Figure 3.160.). Next to the south entrance of the classroom, there was a well (Figures
3.159., 3.160. and 3.163.).

North-West and South-East wings of the revaks were stepped following the slope.
Each step had been designed as if it was a private terrace in front of each room (Figure
3.164.). Northeast revaks were the lowest and not a stepped wing. There were two
individual sekis made from cut stone in that section.

In upper end of the revaks, in front of the service space, there was an original water
tank, maksem, made from marble (Figure 3.159.).61 Revaks were approximately 4.48m
in width. Sekis in North-West and South-East revaks are approximately 2.15x2.93m
and 0.28m higher than revaks. Sekis in North-East revaks were approximately
3.52x3.02m and 0.15m higher than the revak level. Revaks were covered with domes.
South-West revaks difered from others; They are approximately 3.56m in width and
covered with barrel vaults. This section was interrupted with the classroom.

61
However the taps were not exist in 2016.

198
 Figure 3.163. Seminar hall (classroom,) of Rabi Medrese 2016

Figure 3.164. North East facade of Rabi Medrese from the courtyard of the
Mulazımlar Rooms, 2016

The Rooms: The rooms were squared in shape and had approximate sizes;
3.70x3.70m. Each had 3 windows on outer façade, two at the bottom and one at the
top (Figure 3.165.). Each room had three niches in the same sizes (Figures 3.166. and

199
3.167.). The north corner room was a connection space, as well. It had a fireplace and
a second door opening into the next room (Figures 3.168. and 3.169.). The next room
was one of two upper rooms of Mulazimlar Rooms (Figure 3.170.). These upper rooms
and the common terrace in front of those were the connection point of Rabi and Salis
Medreses and Mulazimlar Rooms as it was explained above (Figure 3.159. and 3.165.).

As the windows of the rooms were on the outer walls, and had a deep backyard in
front, as well as the classroom was on the highest point of the courtyard, all the spaces
were good ventilated and well illuminated.

Figure 3.165. Outer façade and window order of the rooms in Rabi and Salis
medreses, 2016

Figure 3.166. Room detail, plan (left) and section (right) from restoration detail
projects by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of KVKBK 1)

200
 Figure 3.167. Interior of a typical room

Figure 3.168. (left) The first part of the north corner room, 2016
Figure 3.169. (right) The first part of the north corner room, 2016

Figure 3.170.The second part of the north corner room (upper Mülazımlar room),
2016

201
The Classroom: The classroom was 7.78x7.78m and stilted from revak level as high
as 6 step (1.37m up to wet section level). It had two entrances on south east and on
north west facades, close to south west façade. Inside the classroom, there was also
another wet space area in between the two entrances and there was a seki one step
(0.11m) higher than the wet part. Inside, a tap was located on south east wall probably
for ablution (Figures 3.159. and 3.160.). In the middle of the north east façade, was a
projection (Figures 3.160. and 3.171.). On the south east wall, there was also a mihrap.
The classroom had 12 windows, 6 of them at the bottom and 6 at the top. There were
6 small niches and a bookcase in the walls. Under the classroom was a cistern and the
cover was on the floor of the classroom (Figures 3.159. and 3.160.).

Figure 3.171. Classroom from courtyard, 1960 (Archive of DGF)

The service space: The service space was original and located in a symmetric position
with the entrance, at the top level of the medrese. There was a small space before toilets
and 3 toilet cabins in the service space (Figure 3.159.). The space was good ventilated
by embrasures and enlightened by light holes in the vault (Figure 3.172.).

202
 Figure 3.172. Original wc hall of Rabi Medrese, 2016

3.6.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Rabi Medrese will be documented

chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Rabi Medrese was repaired in many
times in Ottoman period; in 1832, 1844, 1845. 1847 1857, 1870, 1873, 1906 and 1916.
Most of these repairs were about sanitary rehabiliations/maintenance and lead cover
repairs. In 1844 repair, pavements of the rooms were changed. In 1914 inspection, 4
additional barrack were detected in the courtyard of the medrese and it was reported
that the barracks should be removed immediately (Kütükoğlu 2000).

In Republic period, the medrese supposed to some severe deteriorations during

unfunctioned situation, due to dilapidation atmospheric conditions and wrong repairs
(Restoration Report of Rabi Medrese 2003).

203
During the derelict years between 1918-1961, the medrese had been subjected to some
unpermitted constructions and additions on its street facades, however they were
demolished in accordance to the council decision.62

Rabi Medrese was first repaired for refunctioning in 1961 together with Salis Medrese
to be converted into a dormitory, according to the council decision no 1961/1660.
Within this comprehensive restoration, domes were covered with leadlike cement
plaster, plastered walls were scratched and recovered with cement plaster, all the brick
pavements in rooms and in the classrooms were changed, most of the windows, door
frames and tresholds were renewed, wooden roofing of the entrance terraces of both
medreses and Mulazimlar Rooms’ terrace were reconstructed, the toilets were
rehabilitated, sanitary system was renewed comprehensively, hot water and heating
systems were installed (DGF document-8) and two rooms of Mulazimlar Rooms at
northeast end were converted into the heating center (Restoration Report of Rabi
Medrese 2003).

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In 2016, when the Rabi Medrese
was surveyed, it was in-use as TUBA-Rabi Medrese for academic purposes by
Türkiye Academy of Sciences (TUBA) for 15 years.

The last reuse interventions and installation works on Rabi Medrese was started with
the project works in 2003 with the approval of measured drawing project renewals, as
well as restitution and restoration projects with Council I decision 2003/15572.63 This
decision included a note that one of three original toilets might be restored as original.
Within this decision, electric and heating system proposal were also approved.

The new function was decided with a cooperation between the architect and the user
institution, TÜBA. In the restoration report it was sensitively considered that “the
building should be open for visitors and it is avoided from new functions that may
cause extra load to the building”. 5 rooms planned as rare books library, 3 rooms as
exhibition spaces, the rooms on north east wing as researcher offices, one room as
security and one room as welcoming office. The classroom was planned as a

62
One of these unpermitted buildings constructed in backyard of the medrese on Dökmeciler Street was
demolished in 1955 with the decision number 1955/435 of High Council.
63
Previous measured drawings by architect Hüsrev Tayla and Feyhan İnkaya were aprroved with the
Council I decision 1991/2548.

204
multifunctional activity place for concerts, meetings, exhibitions and similar
organizations (Restoration Report of Rabi Medrese 2003) (Figure 3.173.). Rabi
Medrese was converted into an academic and cultural center. The user institution
TÜBA created an academic committee including 10 specialists in 2005,64 so that
restoration process could be held carefully and sensitively (Rehabilitation Council I
document-4).

Within the restoration works between 2005-2010; all the inappropriate additions were
removed. The building restored with compatible materials and details as original.
Some new additions were applied for new function –such as; glass windows without
frame were placed into bottom windows of the rooms, the classroom and the toilets
(Figures 3.177. and 3.178.). The sinks were renewed with removable elements which
were specially designed for the medrese (Figures 3.172. and 3.179.), lighting and
heating systems were renewed in consideration of minimum visual impact and
minimum damage to the building (Restoration Report of Rabi Medrese 2003) (Figures
3.173.-3.175.).

Electric lines including lighting, heating, security, data, cable TV and telephone were
installed in the channel under the floor and joints on the cut stone walls (Figures 3.173.-
3.178.). For space heating, the radiator system was preferred in the rooms and air
conditioners in the classroom. As the choice of use of the rooms requires different
spaces to be heated in different periods of times, choice of radiator system as a central
heating system becomes a false technical installation in the medrese. This led to an
alternative choice for heating the permanently used rooms by means of an electrical
heating sheet (Figure 3.179.).

Endirect lighting system was installed to the revaks to emphasize and reveal the
architectural perception (Figure 3.175.). Additional lighting armatures were placed in
the courtyard and under the trees to get extra lighting and to emphasize ablution

64
This committee consisted of Prof. Dr Zeynep Ahunbay (from Istanbul Technical University), Prof.
Dr. Ufuk Esin (Honorary Member of TÜBA), Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan (Principal Member of
TÜBA), Prof. Dr. Ayşe Erzan (Principal and Academic Council Member of TÜBA), Prof. Dr. Yücel
Kanpolat (Principal and Academic Council Member of TÜBA), Architect M.Sc. Ayşe Orbay
(Restoration Project Designer of Rabi Medrese), Selçuk Baturalp (chief expert of TÜBA), a
representative from DGF, a representative from Ministry of Culture Cultural Heritage Protection
Council I of Istanbul, a representative from Ministry of Culture General Directorate of Cultural Heritage
and Museums Restoration and Conservation Central Laboratory.

205
fountain. The colours of light in different places were also studied and modelled
carefully (Lighting System Report of Rabi Medrese 2003).

Having been completed the restoration rorks in 2010, TÜBA ordered an interior design
project to the Culture Management Agency, AlArt, for new use necessities. AlArt
developed the project considering the contemporary needs and significance of the
building. All the furnitures were designed specially for the building analyzing the
rthym of the architectural elements. The philosophy of interior design was based on
this rtytm and the balance between to respect and to internalize the historic building.
Form, material and number/density of furnitures, chandeliers and accessories were
also designed considering this rthym, balance and architectural character of the
building (TÜBA Günce 2014) (Figures 3.163., 3.80.-3.183.).

Figure 3.173. New uses of the spaces of Rabi Medrese in 2016, alterations and
installations, applied on plan of restoration project by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of
KVKBK 1)

206
Figure 3.174. A-A Section from restoration project of Rabi Medrese by Ayşe Orbay,
2003 (archive of KVKBK 1)

Figure 3.175. Electric lines installation in rooms and revaks; plan and section from
restoration detail projects by Ayşe Orbay, 2003 (archive of KVKBK 1)

Figure 3.176. Installations in North garden, rooms and revaks, 2009 (archive ofDGF)

207
Figure 3.177. Window framework detail applied in rooms and classroom (left) and in
toilets (right), 2016

Figure 3.178. A sink detail from wc, 2016

208
Figure 3.179. Electrical heating sheet in and radiator in administration office, 2016

Figure 3.180. Entrance revak of Rabi Medrese, 2016

209
 Figure 3.181. North East revaks of Rabi Medrese, 2016

-
Figure 3.182. Chairman's Office refurnishing, 2016

210
 Figure 3.183. Room design as office use for researchers, 2016

Despite these careful project design and implementation processes, some of the spaces’
function has been changed; the library was moved to another building of TÜBA and 5
rooms were turned into a researcher office. One room was turned into a masjid, two
rooms were allocated to executives as offices. The classroom and common spaces of
Rabi Medrese were used for prestigious organizations of TÜBA, the rooms were
allocated to the researchers studying on scientific and/or academic projects for a
certain period.

However, some interventions were made after restoration by the user. Audio system,
other essential systems for broadcasting and air conditioning system was also installed
to the classroom (Figures 3.163. and 3.184.) As the walls were too thick for wireless
system to work effectively, extra wireless boxes and cables were loaded onto revak
façade. As the heating system was not enough for getting effective temperature,
additional portable heaters were put inside the rooms. All these installations negatively
effected the architectural perception of the medrese.

Although Rabi and Salis medreses were separately evaluated with all administrative
needs in the last refunctioning, both users demanded to combine some common
operational requirements for both medreses to reduce the management expansions. It
was also informed during the site survey in April 2016 that there was a management

211
plan of TÜBA for Rabi Medrese, however, it was not possible to study it for
institutional security reasons.

Figure 3.184. Improper installations after restoration on the façade of the classroom,
2016

212
3.7. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese (1580)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Kılıç Ali
Paşa Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.7.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was part of Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex (Figures 3.185. and
3.186.). The Complex was built by Kaptan-ı Derya -Executive Chief Commander of
Ottoman Navy- Kılıç Ali Paşa. The complex was one of the most important works of
Mimar Sinan. According to 989 Hijri (B.C.1580) dated foundation charter, the
complex consisted of a mosque and a Turkish hammam.65 (Charter-7). According to
inscription panels, the mosque and the tomb were built in 1580. Hamam was built in
1587 and the medrese was built in 1588. (Figures 3.187. - 3.189.). Then a primary
school was added66. Both in the charter and in the list of Architect Sinan’s
masterpieces, it was not mentioned about the medrese. The first muderris assignment
in 1588 proved the existence of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 1588 (Kütükoğlu 2000).

The most important building of Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex was the mosque. The mosque
was very famous with its plan layout as a small copy of Hagia Sophia (Eyice 2002).
The tile decorations of the mosque were also very famous.

65
In the charter, the place of medrese and hamam is described that was full of shops donated to the
foundation and it is also expressed that the hamam was built instead of demolished shops among those
mentioned in the charter. (Charter-7)
66
The school was not exist in 2016 and there were no information about its location.

213
In 16th century, the place of the medrese was full of shops before its construction and
the district was both a housing and a commercial area.

Figure 3.185. (left) Location of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, 18th
century (Kubilay 2010)

Figure 3.186. (right) Location of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Kauffer Map, 1786
(Kubilay, 2010)

Figure 3.187. (left) Site Plan Restitution of the Complex (Kuran 1986)
Figure 3.188. (right) Site Plan Restitution of the Complex by Ali Sami Ülgen, 1941

214
 Figure 3.189. Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque and Tomb in a gravure, 1840 (Eyice 2002)

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2016:

In 19th century a sebil was added to the complex, on the corner of garden wall of the
mosque (Eyice 2002) At the beginnings of 1900’s physical environment began to
change; streets on the north and east side of the mosque were widened, some of the
buildings were demolished to get green areas for public use, the large warehouse on
dockage and the harbor were constructed very close to the complex, many of buildings
were reconstructed and some big scaled buildings were built during 19th and 20th
centuries (Figures 3.190. - 3.195.). However, the district had kept its general historical
character by the end of 19th century.

Figure 3.190. Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex by Robertson, 1855

215
Figure 3.191. Tophane District in 1870's by Basile Kargapuolo, at right Kılıç Ali
Paşa Mosque

Figure 3.192. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Maps, 1927

Figure 3.193. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese with its lot in chadastral plan, 2013 (IMM)

216
 Figure 3.194. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese with its lot in aerial photo, 2013 (IMM)

Figure 3.195. Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015 (https://www.haberler.com)

At the beginning of 2000’s, with the “Galataport” rehabilitation project of 100.000sqm

area (Figure 3.196.), general use of the environment began to turn into tourism,
accommodation, fair-exhibition-seminar, shopping, entertainment, terminal and office
facilities. The traditional residential buildings on south of the medrese had been turned
into cafeterias and touristic shops (Figures 3.197. and 3.198.).

Figure 3.196. Galataport Project site plan (Arkitera-2)

217
 Figure 3.197. (left). The street at south of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrerse, 2016
Figure 3.198. (right). Small square at south of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrerse, 2016

The medrese was at south of the mosque and very close to shore of the Bosphorus.
Entrance of the medrese was on the north façade of the medrese facing to Kılıç Ali
Paşa Medresesi Street (in Ottoman Period it called Medrese Street). As the street level
had risen up within centuries, the medrese was lower than neighbor buildings in 2016.
The revaks were 95cm lower than the street level (Figure 3.199.).

Figure 3.199. Entrance facade and entrance door of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015

In 2016, around the medrese its complex; Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque with its tomb and
graveyard, the sebil and Kılıç Ali Paşa Hamam were still exist. The mosque and the

218
hammam were still active, however, the sebil did not work. Lots of touristic shops and
cafeterias some of which are converted from 19th century houses, Tophane Fountain,
Nusretiye Pavillon, Nusretiye Mosque, Sen Benoit High School, traditional nargile
cafes, office buildings and banks, art and culture centers such as Istanbul Modern and
historic Tophane building from 15th century were exist.67

Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese had kept its original function until 19th century in accordance
with the deeds of its foundation charter. Debbağzade İbrahim Efendi turned one of the
rooms of the medrese into a library in 1801 (1216 H) and prepared an additional
foundation charter. He donated 753 books to the library and the collection consisted
of 1071 books (Erünsal 2002). The medrese had actively been used until 1914.

In 1914 inspection, it was reported that; “…as the close environment is a commercial
area and around the medrese is full of apartments, the medrese function is not suitable
for the building” (Kütükoğlu 2000) (Figures 3.190.-3.192.and 3.200.). Following the
report, the function was ended, all the books were moved first to Sultan Selim Library
in 1914 and then to Süleymaniye Library in 1918 (Erünsal 2002). In 1918, the medrese
was abandoned and in a very poor condition (Figure 3.201.). Then, 5 of rooms were
occupied by soldiers (Kütükoğlu 2000). According to land register, the medrese was
registered on the name of Emetullah Valide Sultan Foundation in 1944 (archive of
KVKBK no II).

Figure 3.200. (left) Kılıç Ali Paşa Complex, photo by Sophus Williams, 1860's
Figure 3.201. (right) Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese from minaret, at the beginning of 20th
century from Restoration Report (archive of KVKBK 1)

67
Galataport is the most attractive socio-cultural and touristic recreative area converting the
environment in 2023.

219
After a long period of abandonment, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was turned into a nursery
and was using by Children Inspection Institution -Çocuk Esirgeme Kurumu- until
1980’s (Appendix B., Chart 7.1.1.). In 1990, measured drawings and restoration
projects of the medrese were prepared by DGF. Then the medrese was allocated to
Aydinlar Ocağı Association with the condition of restoration in 1996 (Kütükoğlu
2000), however, the restoration could not be made and the association had never used
the medrese.

According to archive documents of DGF, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was pre-allocated to
1907 Fenerbahce Foundation to be used for touristic and cultural activities with the
condition of restoration in 2002. The foundation prepared alternative reuse projects to
use the medrese as a cultural center in which chamber orchestra concerts and music
activities to be held in connection with the Istanbul Modern Project. Therefore, the
medrese was allocated in 2010 to the same foundation. As the foundation could not
find a finance for the restoration, the allocation was ended in 2012.

Meanwhile, the medrese was demanded by different institutions and NGO’s to be used
for different purposes; in 2008 Education and Cooperation Foundation for Mental
Disables -Zihinsel Engelliler İçin Eğitim ve Dayanışma Vakfı- demanded the medrese
to use for rehabilitation of disable children. Mimar Sinan University wanted to use the
medrese for exhibitions and academic works of the university in 2011. In 2012, also 8
different NGOs, 7 different foundations and an association, demanded to use the
medrese for their activities.68

Lastly, the medrese was allocated to Çayeli Foundation to be used for social and
cultural facilities with the condition of restoration of the medrese. During the site
survey and interviev with the executive of the foundation made in December 2015, it
was informed that; the name of the user foundation will be changed into Kılıç Ali Paşa
Foundation, the landscaping of the medrese including street level arrangements will
be designed, financed and made by the user foundation. In addition, a sensitive interior
design project similar to Rabi Medrese will be prepared and applied considering the
original use and architectural characteristics of the medrese. In 2016, the medrese was
named as Kılıç Ali Paşa Strategic Researches Center.

These foundations and the association were; İzev Foundation, East Turkistan Immigrants Association,
68

HalilürRAHMAN Foundation, Research and Culture Foundation, Human Help

220
3.7.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was a rectangular planned self standing building
(Figure 3.202.). It was not as high as other studied medreses. According to the last
approved restoration project, the medrese was 27.36x28.66m from outside. It was
4.73m up to lead cover line on east -graveyard- façade. The medrese had 17 rooms, a
classroom, courtyard, revaks, entrance eivan and toilets.

Figure 3.202. Original situation adapted from Restitution Plan by DK Architecture,

2009 (archive of DGF)

221
The medrese was made from alternate brick and stone masonry; three lines of brick,
one line lime stone. Courtyard façade of revaks had the same character. The facades
of the rooms on revak side were plastered. All the spaces and revaks were paved with
hegzagonal brick. The courtyard was not paved. All the spaces were covered with
domes. Toilets, the corridor in front of it and the symmetric space as part of the north
west corner room were covered with vaults. All the domes and vaults were covered
with lead sheet.

Courtyard and Revaks: The courtyard was rectangular, 9.35x7.68m and surrounded
with revaks from four sides. In the middle of the courtyard, there was an octagonal
ablution fountain without a shelter (Figure 3.203.) and a well between the ablution
fountain and the classroom (Figure 3.204.).

The revaks were 4m in width. The revaks carried by marble columns with marble
capitals (Figure 3.205.) Capitals had baklava shaped decorations. Domes of revaks
were plastered from inside and had dark red fillet decorations.

Figure 3.203. Courtyard of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, 2015

222
Figure 3.204. Ablution fountain and well in the courtyard, 2015

Figure 3.205. North east revaks, 2015

223
The Rooms: The rooms were squared and approximately 3.30x3.30m. The corner
room on north west was different in size, it was rectangular as a result of symmetric
plan layout and 3.29x4.87m. All the rooms had three bottom windows, one was on
revak façade, two were on outer façade (Figure 3.202., 3.205.-3.207.). The rooms
facing towards east and south backyard facades were also had three top windows in
the same vertical axis with the bottom windows. The rooms on north and west wings
had only top windows on outer facades. The three corner rooms on north west, north
east and south east had double window order on outer facades.

Figure 3.206. East corner room from graveyard, 2015

Figure 3.207. Revak facade order of rooms 2015

224
Rooms had a fireplace and had small niches in different sizes and different numbers in
range of 1 to 3 (Figures 3.208. and 3.209.). The rooms were well ventilated in general,
however, the ones on south wing were comparatively dark and humid due to lack of
direct sunlight both for narrow backyard and high neighbor buildings.

Figure 3.208. (left). East corner room 2015

Figure 3.209. (right) Niche in rooms 2015

The Classroom and the Entrance Eivan: The classroom was in the middle of the
east façade and projected through graveyard of the mosque. It was covered with a
dome. The classroom was two steps, 0.27m, higher than the revak level. It had 10
windows, 6 were at bottom, 4 at top. There was also a mihrap niche and bookcase
niches in the classroom. The classroom was the only decorated space of the medrese;
shell shaped transition semidomes and stalactites below the semidomes, malakari
decorations both in triangular surfaces between the semidomes and surrounding the
main dome at drum level and stalactite decoration in mihrap were the characteristics
of the classroom (Figures 3.210. and 3.211.).

The entrance eivan was squared in the room order. Its dimensions were approximately
3.30x3.30m and it covered with a dome.

225
Figure 3.210. Classroom of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2015

Figure 3.211. Mihrab in the classroom of 2015

226
The Toilets: The toilets were re-designed within the medrese, out of the south west
corner in a small courtyard of 5.28x2.53m. The courtyard connected to the narrow
backyard at alongside the south facade (Figure 3.202.).

3.7.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese will be documented
chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the conservative reuse
approach applied on the medrese after it lost its original function.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was repaired
several times in Ottoman Period in 1848, 1893, 1903 and 1911. These were simple
repairs and maintenance works (Kütükoğlu 2000).

In Republic Period, during the nursery use, the user made some unpermitted and very
dangerous interventions for new function (Appendix B., Chart 7.1.1.) (Figure 3.212.).
Within these interventions, almost all the original plasters, floor coverings, windows,
doors and metal fancings were changed. Original fireplaces, chimneys and lead dome
coverings were removed. Door openings were added destroying the masonry walls
between rooms. Some of the doors were closed with brick bonds. Additional top
windows were opened on some of the domes. Original octagonal brick pavements were
covered with cement splash. Original masonry walls were covered with tiles. Radiator
heating system was installed. The revaks were covered with metal framework.

Figure 3.212. Unpermitted harmful interventions in revaks (left), in the classroom

(middle) and in a room (right) of Kilic Ali Paşa Medrese during the nursery function.
(archive of DGF)

227
In 1990, restoration projects were prepared and approved with decision number
1990/2371 of Council I. According to this decision, all the alterations should be
returned into original as proposed in the project and the existing framework covering
the revaks had to be removed. However, there was no document or further information
about this project in archives.

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In 2016, when the Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese was surveyed, it was already allocated to Çayeli Foundation to be used for
social, cultural and educational purpose. Then, the foundation named the building as
Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese Strategic Researchs Center.

The last reuse process started with project works in 2002. The first measured drawings,
restitution and restoration projects prepared by the new user were rejected in 2003 with
the decision number 2003/15438 of the Conservation Council II, for technical reasons
and with the condition of proposing a restoration project considering the original
features of the building. According to archive documents (Council II documents-1, 2
and 3), as the prepared restoration projects included alternative designs for closure of
the revaks and closure of the courtyard systems for new function, (Figures 3.213.-
3.215.) the project proposals had never been approved by the council and the allocation
was ended. Meanwhile, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese was registered in 2003 by the Council
II (Council II document 1)

228
 Figure 3.213. Rejected restoration plan proposal (DK Architect)

Figure 3.214. Closure of the revaks proposal for Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, prepared by
DK Architecture in 2005 (DK Architect)

229
 Figure 3.215. Courtyard covering system proposal for Kilic Ali Paşa Medrese
prepared by DK Architecture in 2005 (DK Architect)

Measured drawings were approved in 2008 with decision 2008/1701 of Council II.
Restitution and restoration projects were approved one year later with the decision
2009/2551of Council II. However, this restoration project has never been applied.

The last reuse interventions were made according to approved restoration projects with
the decision number 2015/4202 of Protection Council II of Istanbul Cultural Assets.
According to approved restoration project, all the rooms would be used as offices, the
classroom as seminar hall and the revaks as art gallery. Within this restoration, general
features returned into restitution with authentic materials, techniques and details. The
toilets were rehabilitated both with wall additions and contemporary sanitary
equipments. Interventions that were foreseen were lyed down in installation channel
surrounding the revaks and placed under plaster (Figures 3.216.-3.218.) Electric cables
and armatures for revaks lighting were lyed on the tension roads of the revaks (Figures
3.203., 3.205. and 3.217.-3.220.). In close spaces wrf system was installed for air-
conditioning with the advantages of minimum impact to the structure and energy
efficiency. According to undated restoration reports of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese by DK
Architecture, energy efficiency was emphasized together with the minimum impact
advantage of the vrf system. It was important to demonstrat the awarneses of the
energy efficiency topic in the field of architectural conservation.

230
Depending on the conversation made with the director of the user foundation during
the site survey in 2016, the medrese would be used for only cultural and academic
purposes considering the personality of the donor, as well as historic character of the
building. An interior design project would be prepared and applied as like as the
interior design project of the Rabi Medrese. The medrese would not be used as the
headquarter of the foundation.

Figure 3.216. Plan, restoration project by DK Architecture, 2009 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.217. Interventions in A-A Section, restoration project by DK Architecture,

2009 (archive of DGF)

231
Figure 3.218. Interventions in B-B Section, restoration Project by DK Architecture,
2009 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.219. (left) Revak lighting, 2015

Figure 3.220. (right) Lighting on the tension rods in revaks 2015

232
3.8. Siyavuş Paşa Medrese (1590)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Siyavuş Paşa Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2016 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Siyavuş
Paşa Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.8.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Siyavuş Paşa
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese was built by Siyavuş Paşa in 1590 on behalf of his wife Fatma
Sultan, who was the doughter of Sultan Selim II. The architect of the medrese was
Davut Ağa. (Ahunbay 1994-2) According to 998 Hijri (1590 Miladi) dated foundation
charter of Fatma Sultan, the medrese has 15 rooms for students to residence and a
classroom. (Charter 7) In the charter, he also decided to built a mosque, caravanserai,
hankah, imaret, school, daruttalim and a bridge, however the lands were not predefined
and they were in different locations even in different cities.

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2016:

In 16th century, the hillside was both housing and commercial area area and great
Fatma Sultan Palace (or Siyavuş Paşa Palace) was near the medrese, between the
medrese and Rabi Medrese of Süleymaniye Complex. (Baltacı 1976, Ahunbay 1994-
2) During the Ottoman Period and the Early Republican Period, the context was not
extremely changed until 1940’s, but gradually was getting poor (Figures 3.221.-
3.224.). In 2016, general functional and physical condition of the district was very
poor.

233
Figure 3.221. (left) Location of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Map of Bilad-ı Selase, and
urban fabric in18th century (Kubilay 2010)

Figure 3.222. (right) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Ayverdi Map and urban fabric in 1848

Figure 3.223. left) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in German Blues, 1909-1913

Figure 3.224. (right) Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Maps, 1941

In 2016, The medrese was in Demirtaş District. It was surrounded with Hatap Kapısı
Yokuşu and Kepenekci streets from two sides. A neighbor lot and a connected building
was on the third side. Entrance of the medrese was on Kepenekci Street. The district
was between the Süleymaniye Complex and Eminönü. It was both a housing and
commercial area. The streets were narrow as in Ottoman Period, however functions
and scales of the building has been extremely changed. Around the medrese, Hoca
Hamza Mesjid, lots of shops and offices were located. Buildings in close environment
were in range of 2-7 storey, some of those were registered. There were many of
buildings that were either completely derelicted or upper floors were unused. Top
floors of 6-7 storey buildings have been converted into touristic café-restaurants in
2010’s for panoramic Istanbul view advantages. Two streets above the medrese,
Süleymaniye Complex, Tomb of Mimar Sinan, prayer-beans bazaar, cupper-makers
bazaar would be mentioned as touristic areas and shopping axis. It was possible to

234
reach to the medrese by bus from Eminönü-Unkapani line, by taxi or on foot from both
the districts Süleymaniye and Eminönü. In 2016, the medrese was in the borders of
“Süleymaniye Mosque and Surround World Heritage Site” (Figure 3.82.).

According to its foundation charter (Charter 7), the medrese was built for education
on social and positive sciences. In 1792, 33 people were staying at the medrese, 2 of
them were staying alone, other rooms were shared with second students of assistances
as housekeepers (Kütükoğlu 2000). In 1914, the medrese was still active but in very
poor condition (Ahunbay 1994-2). In 1918, only 6 rooms were sound and 3 of those
were occupied by the Red Crescent, 3 of those were used by soldiers (Kütükoğlu
2000).

After the education system was changed in Republic period in 1924, the medrese
remained abandoned for years. In time people began to occupy the medrese for
residential purpose. In 1941, poor people were staying at the medrese (Ahunbay 1994-
2) and the medrese was used as yoghurt producing workshop in 1940’s (Measured
Drawing Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2010). The medrese was still derelict,
sewerely deteriorated and some of the rooms were occupied by people in 1994. (Özbay
2001)

According to an archive document, the medrese was evaluated within 1970-1971

restoration program, however, as a new function could not be decided (DGF
document-9) due to the storages in lower ground owned by third different natural
persons and were using by tenants, the restoration could not be made (DGF document-
10).

Around 2000’s, some of the rooms were used as housing, the classroom was used for
commerce (Kütükoğlu 2000) and the medrese was partially used as leather workshop
(Measured Drawing Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2010)

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese had been granted to Istanbul Governorate to be used for social
and cultural purposes by Architecture Foundation -Mimarlık Vakfı- by DGF in 2007
with the decision number 2007/12 of Foundations Council. During the restoration
process, the granting has been cancelled and the building was granted to Istanbul Art
and Civilisation Foundation –İstanbul Sanat ve Medeniyet Vakfı- in 2015 to be used
with the same purpose. The foundation refunctioned the medrese as Hilye and Prayer-
Beads Museum -Hilye ve Tespih Müzesi-. The museum was opened in 02.01.2016.

235
The official procedure regarding to be a museum has been fulfilled after opening
ceremony.

3.8.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Siyavuş Paşa Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: Siyavuş Paşa Medrese has an extraordinary layout in terms of both typology
and tophography. It was a two-storey building on two ground floor level originally;
upper floor was the medrese, while lower floor was divided into 3 individual shops.69
In 2016, the ownership was overlapped in the cadastral plan. The land registrations of
the medrese and the shops were also overlapped.70

Although the Siyavuş Paşa Medrese has an extraordinary triangular plan scheme, it
was typologically considered within distorted U type medreses of Ahunbay’s
classification. The entrance door from the street directly opens through a small
courtyard, at west side of the classroom. The second and triangular courtyard was
surrounded with a lead covered wooden shelter as revaks. Behind revaks there were
14 rooms, a classroom and a rectangular space which was supposed to be a laundry in
original (Ahunbay 1994-2). 5 of rooms were placed on south wing of the triangle, 1
room and laundry on west wing, 8 of rooms were on north wing (Figure 3.225. and
3.227.). Due to the tophography, two partial basement floor was designed as storages
and shops (Figure 3.226).

69
In 2016, the owner of the medrese was DGF and the owners of the shops are different real persons.
70
The lot numbers of shops (lots 7, 8, 9, 11) and the lot number of the medrese (lot 1) are also different
but overlapped. (Archive of Conservation Council IV of Istanbul)

236
Siyavuş Paşa Medrese was made of alternate brick and stone masonry; 1 stone, 2 brick
rows in rooms’walls, 1 stone, 3 brick rows in classroom walls. However, during the
19th century repairs, main wall orders had been slightly changed (Restitution Report
of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese 2010).

Figure 3.225. Restitution Plan by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.226. Basement Floor Plans restitution Architecture Foundation, 2010

(archive of DGF)

237
Figure 3.227. North Facade Restitution by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of
DGF)

The Courtyard and Revaks: Behind the entrance was a courtyard, another triangular
courtyard was the main collective area of the medrese.

Original revaks surrounding the triangular courtyard were covered with inclined and
wood made shelter probably supported by wooden posts in original (Restitution Report
of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese 2010) (Figures 3.225. and 3.228.).

Figure 3.228. South rooms elevation from courtyard in restitution project by

Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of DGF)

The Rooms: The rooms were squared and approximately 3.50x3.50m in size. Each
room has a fireplace and 4 niches in the same wall symmetrically designed at both
sides of the fireplace (Figures 3.225. and 3.229.). South, west and north rooms had one
window facing through courtyard. North rooms had extra 4 windows on north wall,
two of them at bottom, two at top (Figure 3.227.).

238
 Figure 3.229. G-G Section restitution by Architecture Foundation, 2010 (archive of
DGF)

The Classroom: The classroom was also squared, 6.82x6.90m in size. It had a mihrap
niche, two medium niches on both sides the mihrap, 5 windows at bottom line and 7
top windows (Figures 3.225., 3.227. and 3.230.).

Figure 3.230. East facade, entrance and classroom in 1941 (Town Council Archive)

The Service Space (Laundry): According to approved restitution plan by

Architecture Foundation, the laundry was 7.7x2.8m and covered with two domes of
which two light hole at the top. Inside there were 3 toilet rooms (Figure 3.225.).

239
3.8.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on Siyavuş Paşa Medrese will be documented
chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the contemporary
conservative reuse approach applied on the medrese.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Siyavuş Paşa Medrese repaired many
times in Ottoman Period. The medrese was affected from 1688 fire71, then repaired
between 1693-1697 (Ahunbay 1994-2). In 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th
century, the medrese had been repaired many of times; in 1832, 1848, after 1850 fire,
1873, 1891, 1900 and 1909. During the 19th century repairs, main wall orders72 had
been slightly changed (Restitution Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese 2010).

In 1914 inspection, the medrese and the service spaces were in a very poor condition.
Furthermore 4 additional rooms were in the courtyard and it was reported that the
building was not suitable for residence and it needs being repaired (Ahunbay 1994-2,
Kütükoğlu 2000).

During the abandoned years between 1914-2007, the medrese had been subjected to
natural deteriorations as well as illegal interventions and demolishions by occupants.
Within this period, original lead covers had been dismantled, plasters, doors, windows,
fireplaces and book cases had been demolished, revaks and ablution fountain in the
center of the triangular courtyard had completely been collapsed or destroyed (Figure
3.231.). Two spaces in the southwest corner had been connected with a door
demolishing the masonry wall in between (Figure 3.239.).

71
With this fire, the great palace of Siyavuş Paşa –or Fatma Sultan Palace- had completely been burnt.
(Ahunbay 1994-2)
72
1 stone, 2 brick rows in rooms’walls, 1 stone, 3 brick rows in classroom walls (as it is explained under
the title “Layout”.

240
 Figure 3.231. Courtyard and North rooms in 1941 (Town Council Archive),

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In 2016, when the Siyavuş Paşa
Medrese was surveyed, it was in-use as Hilye and Prayer-Beads Museum.

The last and the only restoration work on Siyavuş Paşa Medrese after it had lost the
original function was started with the project approvals in 2007 with decision number
2007/1088 of Conservation Council of Cultural Heritage of Istanbul Reovation Areas
–İstanbul Yenileme Alanları Koruma Kurulu-. The same decision also included the
expropriation of the shops at lower ground floor. The new function designed within
the concept restoration project was architecture center. Following the research
excavations and cleaning works in 200973, revision projects were approved by the
same council in 2010 with the decision number 2010/1988. This decision also included
a prohibition to park in front of Mutasarrıf Street façade –south façade- of the medrese.

According to new use decision as architecture center; the shops would be used for
workshop and exhibition activities, the rooms would be used as small workshops,
digital library and buffet, the classroom would be used as seminar hall, and the
courtyard would be used for broad participated meetings and events (Restoration
Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese 2010) (Figure 3.232.). The revaks were designed as
closable space with non-framed glass seperators so that it could be opened for broad
participated meetings to be held in the courtyard (Figures 3.233. and 3.234.).

73
During the research excavations, 33 trucks of trash and garbage were removed from the medrese.
(12.03.2009 dated corresponding of Architecture Foundation to DGF Istanbul I Regional Directorate,
archive of DGF Istanbul)

241
 Figure 3.232. Plan of approved restoration project, prepared by Architecture
Foundation, 2010 (Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.233. Model of restoration plan of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese by Architecture

Foundation (archive of DGF)

242
 Figure 3.234. Model of restoration plan of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese by Architecture
Foundation (archive of DGF)

Restoration works were started by Architecture Foundation in 2008, however the

process duration was 1 year, and it could not be completed with all the research,
cleaning, project revision and restoration works, as well as waiting for the
expropriation works by DGF. For this reason, the allocation was cancelled and the
restoration was completed by Istanbul Governorate between 2012-2015.

During the restoration, severely deteriorated parts was restored as original (Figures
3.235., 3.236. and 3.237.). The lost architectural and structural elements were
completed with suitable materials and details. As all the plasters and hand paint
decorations were either original or Ottoman repairs, they had just been consolidated
and protected without any complementary plaster or painting. Wooden revaks were
reconstructed within this last restoration. Existing door opening between the two
spaces in southwest corner was kept for the new use (Restoration Report of Siyavuş
Paşa Medrese 2010) (Figure 3.238.).

Figure 3.235. (left) General view from South East, 2016.

Figure 3.236. (right) General view from South, 2016.

243
 Figure 3.237. Main entrance from East, 2016.

Figure 3.238. Existing door opening connecting two spaces in southwest corner of
Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in 2016.

Before restoration works were about being completed, the medrese had been allocated
to Istanbul Art and Civilization Foundation in 2015 as it was expressed above and the
medrese refurbished as Hilye and Prayer-Beads Museum. Restoration was completed,
however revaks were not covered with the framework. Uses of the spaces were
changed (Figure 3.239.). The rooms and the revaks were used for exhibition, the
classroom was designed for welcoming and administration (Figure 3.251.). South west
corner room used for technical equipment. The bottom niches in rooms were furnitured
for exhibition and one or two additional small show cases were placed inside of each
room (Figures 3.239.-3.241.). In the classroom, niches were refurbished with wooden

244
bookcases (Figure 3.243.). Installation lines were lyed down in installation channel
surrounding the revaks (Figures 3.239. and 3.244.). Heating system was designed and
applied as floor heating; however, radiator system was also applied after the restoration
had been completed (Figures 3.246. and 3.247.). Electric and CCTV lines inside rooms
and the classroom were lyed under plaster (Figures 3.245. and 3.246.). Specially
designed chandeliers were used both in the rooms and the classroom (Figure 3.242.).
A prefabric additional building was built in the entrance courtyard to protect technical
equipment (Figure 3.248.). Triangular courtyard was designed for recreation (Figures
3.249.-3.251.). Revak façade walls and entrance courtyard walls were used for
information boards (Figure 3.242.).

Figure 3.239. Plan (Applied situation), restoration project by Architecture

Foundation, 2010 (Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.240. (left) South east corner room, refunctioned as a gallery, 2016.
Figure 3.241. (right) Fireplace and niches in rooms, 2016.

245
 Figure 3.242. Chandelier in rooms and classroom, 2016.

Figure 3.243. Classroom, refunctioned as the administration office, 2016.

Figure 3.244. A-A Section, restoration project by Architecture Foundation, 2010

(Archive of DGF)

246
Figure 3.245. B-B Section, restoration project by Architecture Foundation, 2010
(Archive of DGF)

Figure 3.246. Plan, approved mechanical project by Detay Engineering, 2010

(archive of DGF)

247
Figure 3.247. Radiator in a room in Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2016

Figure 3.248. Storage and additional building behind it, 2016

Figure 3.249. Courtyard from East, 2016.

248
 Figure 3.250. Courtyard and revaks from South, 2016.

Figure 3.251. Northern revaks, using for exhibition, 2016

Figure 3.252. Southern revaks, using for recreation, 2016

249
Figure 3.253. Entrance courtyard of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2016

250
3.9. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese (1592-1593)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese between at
the beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual,
architectural, functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and
social inputs. For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features
of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and
comparison.

3.9.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Koca Sinan
Paşa Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on
reuse decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for
reuse decisions.

The Original Context:

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese was part of Koca Sinan Paşa Complex. Koca Sinan Paşa
Complex was built by the Grand Vizier, the Conqueror of Yemen, Sinan Paşa between
1592-1593 (Kurşun 2008). The architect of the complex was Mimar Davut Ağa.
(Karakaya 2002). The complex consisted of a medrese, a tomb and a sebil (Figure
3.254.). The complex was on the Divanyolu Street (Figure 3.255.) which was the
protocol axis of Ottoman Period. However, the entrance of the medrese was on a small
garden wall on Çilingirler Street, which opened to Divanyolu.

251
Figure 3.254. Site plan showing 16th century situation of Koca Sinan Paşa Complex
from restitution project prepared by Anfora Architecture in 2011 (archive of Anfora
Architecture)

Figure 3.255. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in Pervititch Map, 1922

The medrese was in very close distance to Atik Ali Paşa Medrese. Around the Koca
Sinan Paşa Medrese was Çemberlitaş Square –Forum Constantin from Byzantine
Period-, Çorlulu Ali Paşa Complex including a medrese, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa
Paşa Medrese, historic Grand Bazaar, lots of historic buildings; tombs, mosques,
fountains, sebils, shops were located.

252
Cahnging Context from Its Construction until 2016:

The environmental context had almost completely been conserved until 21th century.
Koca Sinan Paşa Complex was facing Yeniceriler Street –in Ottoman Period was
Divanyolu Street- (Figure 3.255.). Yeniceriler Street was continuation of todays’
Divanyolu Street, which the most important main axis of Istanbul in both Byzantine
and Ottoman periods (Figures 3.256.-3.259.). Yeniceriler and Divanyolu streets were
still the most important tourism axis of historic peninsula of Istanbul connecting
Beyazıt Square to Sultanahmet in 2015.

Figure 3.256. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese with its complex in 1848, Ayverdi Map

Figure 3.257. Koca Sinan Paşa Sebil and Tomb in 19th century (German Archaeology
Instıtute)

253
Figure 3.258. Koca Sinan Paşa Sebil in 19th century (German Archaeology Instıtute)

Figure 3.259. Koca Sinan Paşa Complex in 1755, (Eski İstanbul Resimleri)

The most expressed building of the complex was the tomb of the donor. The tomb had
a polygonal plan layout with 16 edges. Within the time the garden around of the tomb
and in front of the medrese was full of graves with very decorated grave stones. In 18th
century, part of the garden wall in front of the medrese were changed. A higher garden
wall having big and barred openings was built on Yeniçeriler Street instead, so that let
the people coming by the graveyard pray for buried people. The tomb was open for
visiters in 2015-2016.

The sebil was an octagonal and small building at the corner of the street. It was
sensitively decorated with marble and iron fence. In 2016 the sebil was converted into
a small book shop. The sebil was registered in 1959 as the building block/lot number
271/82, with the decision number 1084 of Supreme Council. The medrese –building
block/lot number 271/1- was registered as a cultural asset with the decisions number

254
2003/15002 and 2005/405 of Council IV. It was legended for cultural facilities in
Istanbul Historic Peninsula Urban Conservation Plan (Map 3).

Entrance of the medrese was a small garden wall on Bileyciler Street –in Ottoman
Period was Çilingirler Street-. There was another garden entrance on Yeniceriler
Street, but it was not used today (Figure 3.273.).

The medrese was in very close distance to Atik Ali Paşa Medrese. Around the Koca
Sinan Paşa Medrese was Çemberlitaş –Forum Constantin- from Byzantine Period,
Çorlulu Ali Paşa Complex including a medrese, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa
Medrese, historic Grand Bazaar, lots of historic buildings; tombs, mosques, fountains,
sebils, shops from Ottoman Period and lots of trade buildings and modern khans for
leather, accessories and textile dealers, banks, shops, both touristic and city hotels.

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese was both a classical medrese and a darulhadis medrese in
its history of use. According to Cahit Baltacı, 8 rooms of medrese were used by
darulhadis students, other 8 rooms were used by medrese students in original. It was
one of the most important darulhadises, that the muderris of the medrese was earn 130
akche per day (Baltacı 1976).

In 1792 investigation it was recorded that 21 people were staying at the medrese and
18 people were staying at the darulhadis. However, in 1914 investigation it was
reported that only 16 students can stay at the medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.102). This
shows that there were high demand for the medrese in 18th century. Koca Sinan Paşa
Medrese was still active in 1914, but in 1918 the original function was ended and fire
survivals were staying there (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.102).

In 1926, the medrese had been granted to shoe makers/repairers for 35 years, however
it was taken back by DGF in 1957. After having been repaired between 1960-1964,
the medrese granted to Istanbul University Bussiness Administration Institute
(Kütükoğlu 2000). After having been repaired between 1960-1964, the medrese
allocated to Istanbul University Bussiness Administration Institute (Kütükoğlu 2000)
(Figures 3.260. and 3.261.).

255
Figure 3.260. The classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1990 (archive of IRDF)

Figure 3.261. Use of the classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1990 (archive of
IRDF)

In accordance with the decision of Council of Ministers, Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese
was rented to two different NGOs in 1991 for 5 years; 9 of rooms and the classroom
to Balkan Turks Cooperation and Culture Association “Balkan Türkleri Dayanışma ve
Kültür Derneği”, 5 rooms to Central Association for Turkey Science and Literature
Works Owners “Türkiye İlim ve Edebiyat Eserleri Sahipleri Merkez Birliği”. In 1998,
the classroom and the courtyard were using as café by users (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.103).
In 1999 this granting was ended (Survey Report of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese by

256
Anfora Architecture, 2011). In 2010, with the 231/176 numbered decision of
Foundations Council, the medrese was allocated to Hizmet Foundation for 10 years to
be used for cultural and art facilities with the condition that restoration should have to
be made by the user.

3.9.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese will
be documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and
the eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

The Layout: Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese was a squared building with U plan type
(Figure 3.262.). It has 16 rooms around a courtyard with revaks. Revaks surround the
courtyard from four sides. On the open end of U layout, the classroom was placed in
asimetric position. The entrance of the classroom was on north side looking through
the garden-graveyard- between the medrese and the tomb, not on courtyard side as
other usual examples. In front of the classroom, was a revak. The courtyard had a
separate entrance from this revak. Behind the classroom was a service backyard. The
service backyard was connected with another courtyard on west side of the classroom.
As the medrese was surrounded with very close neighbor buildings from north, east
and partially from west, the rooms face through north west and especially north east
directions were dark and humid.

257
 Figure 3.262. Original layout (produced by using restitution plan) (restitution from
archive of Anfora Architecture, 2011)

According to the approved restitution project, the medrese was 28.36x29.19m from
outside. It was made from cut stone on Yeniceriler Street, entrance and courtyard
facades. Backside facades –north and east facades- were made from alternate brick and
lime stone. Revak facades of the rooms and both inside the rooms and the classroom
were plastered. The floors of the courtyard, revaks and service backyard were paved
with fine-cut lime stone, rooms were paved with brick. All the rooms, classroom and
revaks were covered with domes. Domes were covered with lead sheet. Revaks were
carried by white-grey, round shaped Marmara marbles with marble capitals. All the
capitals have classical baklava decoration. Domes of revaks were not plastered, they
were made from exposed fine brick bond. All the window and door frames were made
from marble. Windows have classical iron grill called “lokmalı parmaklık”.

The Courtyard and Revaks: The courtyard was 14.3x10.76m. In the middle, there
was an octagonal ablution fountain 4.7x4.7m (Figure 3.262.). The fountain was
sheltered with a lead covered roof carried by 8 round marble columns (Figure 3.263.).

258
 Figure 3.263. Courtyard and revaks; ablution fountain, well and stone water tank,
2015

The revaks surrounding the courtyard were 30cm higher than the courtyard level. The
width of the revaks was 3.7m, height was 5m until the top of the profiled profile. In
eastern wing of the revaks, there was a well with stone ring and a pump and a stone
water tank next to the well probably for drinking water and ablution.

The Rooms: The rooms were placed on north, east and south wings of the revaks.
North and east rooms face through a very narrow lighthole-like backyard, south rooms
face through graveyard on Yeniceriler Street. Thus, north and east rooms were very
dark and humid, south rooms were well illuminated.

The rooms were almost squared and have approximate sizes, 3.74x3.70m. Each room
was about 14sqm. Rooms have three windows at bottom level; two of those face
through outside, one through revak side. All the outer windows also had one top
window above itself (Figures 3.262. and 3.264.). Corner rooms at north east and south
east had similar window order; two windows at north and south, one window at east
façade and three top windows on the same axis of the bottom windows. Exceptionally,
the southwest and north west corner rooms have four bottom and three top windows
on three different facades. Each room has a fireplace niche with a chimney in outer
wall (Figure 3.262.). The rooms had also two bookcase niches; one was larger –in
range of 82x143 and 144x220cm- and the other one was smaller –in range of 92x125
and 53x112cm- (Figures 3.262., 3.265. and 3.266.). The north west corner room had
only a larger niche and the north east corner room had three niches.

259
Figure 3.264. Outer window order of rooms and the outer wall of graveyard, from
Divanyolu Street in 2011

Figure 3.265. Big niche in the room where was used as masjid, 2015

260
 Figure 3.266. Small niche in rooms, 2015

The Classroom: The classroom was squared and has a projected sofa on north side.74
It was 54 cm higher than the revaks in front of it (Figures 3.267. and 3.268.). Those
revaks were 54 cm lower than the courtyard revaks. Thus, the classroom stood on the
same level with the courtyard revaks. The classroom was 6.59x6.96m in width, and
the sofa was 2.42x2.41m. The sofa was a kind of seki which was stilted 21 cm from
the main space. The classroom had 8 bottom and 9 top windows. Three bottom and
three top windows on west façade and the same order on opposite west façade, but two
of those were round shaped. Two windows with the same order existed on boths sides
of the entrance (Figures 3.262. and 3.269.-3.271.). At the top of the entrance door was
also a top window. The classroom has two bookcases on both sides of the sofa (Figure
3.269.). The entrance of the classroom was decorated with red and white entrance arch.
The most extraordinary structural elements of the classroom were transition elements
on four corners (Figure 3.269.). These were vault ceiled tromps connecting the squared
plan to octagonal drum of the dome. On both outer walls of each tromp, two top
windows were located. Inside, there were hand drawn decorations on transition zome
and at the top of the dome.

The classroom was projected 8.73x12.17 through west side with its own
revaks.

74
This layout with projection seems like Rabi and Salis medreses’ classrooms.

261
Figure 3.267. Revaks of the classroom from west and the entrance of the medrese at
the end, 2015

Figure 3.268. Revaks of the classroom from south, 2015

262
 Figure 3.269. (left), Classroom north wall and transition elements, 2015
Figure 3.270. (right), Classroom east wall window order, 2015

Figure 3.271. Classroom enrance from inside, 2015

3.9.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

In this section, reuse interventions made on the medrese will be documented

chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works and
interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the contemporary
conservative reuse approach on Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese.

Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese had some
repairs in Ottoman Period. It was affected with 17th century city fires and 1865 Hoca
Paşa Fire. According to archive documents, the medrese was repaired in 1869 just after
the Hoca Paşa Fire. In 1904 the medrese and the tomb, in 1911 the ablution fountain

263
were repaired. Classroom, toilets, baths and laundry were reconstructed in 1914
(Kütükoğlu 2000, Pg:100-103).

During 1926-1957 allocation, the medrese was damaged with improper interventions
(Figure 3.272.).

Figure 3.272. Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 1964 (archive of IRDF)

The medrese was repaired by DGF in 1960, 1964 and 1973-1974. In 1964 repair
included classroom revaks, woodworks and ablution fountain (Kütükoğlu 2000, 100-
103). According to archive documents of DGF, inner surfaces of rooms and classroom
and domes were replastered with cement-based plaster during these repairs. All the
pavements in rooms and the classroom were also changed (Worksite Report of Koca
Sinan Paşa Medrese Restoration, 2012).

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In 2016, when the Koca Sinan
Paşa Medrese was surveyed, it was used for social and cultural activities by Hizmet
Foundation. In the inscription panel nailed on the garden wall only the name Sinan
Paşa Medrese was written.

264
The last adaptive reuse interventions of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese was made between
2012-2014 by Fatih Provincial Municipality on behalf of the user Hizmet Foundation.
The projects were approved by Council IV, with the decisions no 2006/50 and no
2011/4513. According to I.B.3. article of the Project Preparing Contract between Fatih
Municipality and the designer, the project designer should research new use
alternatives and design necessary interventions with complementary reports after
having completed documentation and problem analysis works. However, although
there were detailed researches, projects and reports, there was no such a functional
analysis research in archive documents.

Within restoration and rehabilitation works of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese, structural
reinforcements on domes, masonry consolidations, renewals of plasters and pavements
were made as original, renewals of lead covers on domes were done. A new toilet was
built in backyard in its probable original place (Figure 3.273.). Electrical, mechanical
communicational and security installations were applied including façade lighting. As
the original pavement and plaster of interiors had already been changed in past
restorations, floor heating, underplaster cable installation and aplics for interior space
lighting was preferred and applied. For mechanical and electrical installations, a small
installation channel was created surrounding the revaks (Figures 3.273.-3.275.).
However, façade lighting and CCTV installations fixed to the façade give damaged to
the fine cut stone outer walls (Figure 3.267.).

Medrese rooms were reused for cultural- educational and administrative facilities for
the user foundation (Figure 3.273.). Closer rooms to the entrance were reused for
security and administration. Service spaces were designed in the rooms looking toward
backyard. Corner rooms opening through two sides and well sunlighted ones were
reused for secondary facilities like accommodation, storage, masjid and security. Other
rooms were reused as book translation offices designed for two users. Exceptionally,
one of more illuminated room look through front façade was assigned to a calligrapher
for giving a course (Figure 3.276.). Accomodation service was for foreign students
who need temporarily to accommodate. Classroom was used for cultural seminars
open to all interested people, as well as tourists. Interior design was made in sedir order
referring to sofa order of a traditional Turkish house (Figures 3.269. and 3.270.). As
the classroom needed to be air conditioned during large scaled seminars, a portable air
conditioner was placed inside after the restoration (Figures 3.269. and 3.277.).

265
Some of architectural elements of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese were also used. The
ablution fountain in the middle of courtyard was used with its original function,
however the well under the revaks and the stone water tank next to it was unused in
2015 (Figure 3.263.). Niches in the office rooms were redesigned as bookcases with
wooden furnitures (Figure 3.278.). Big niches inside the corner rooms were designed
as cupboards with wooden covers (Figure 3.265.).

Figure 3.273. Plan showing the new uses and interventions of spaces in 2015 (being
applied on the restoration project by Anfora Architecture in 2011) (restoration
project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

Figure 3.274. Reuse interventions applied on A-A section of restoration project by

Anfora Architecture in 2011(restoration project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

During the site survey made on 22.12.2015, it was informed that niches of rooms were
furnitured and the classroom was designed with high care; open spaces were planned
to be used for temporary exhibitions after a careful design and landscaping and

266
medrese rooms might be assigned to researchers, artists and students who needed a
space to complete their special studies.

Figure 3.275. (left) Control cap on the installation channel surrounding revaks, 2015
Figure 3.276. (middle) The room refurnished for calligraphy workshop, 2015
Figure 3.277. (right) External airconditioning unit of the classroom, 2015

Figure 3.278. The room refurnished as translation office for two users, 2015

267
3.10. Sultan Ahmet Medrese (1619-1620)

This title, refunctioning practices carried out on Sultan Ahmet Medrese between at the
beginning of 1900’s and 2015 were studied by considering contextual, architectural,
functional, legal, administrative, historical, technical, operational and social inputs.
For this study, the original context, architectural and functional features of Sultan
Ahmet Medrese were documented first for a better understanding and comparison.

3.10.1. The Context

In this section, the effect of the original and the changing context of the Sultan Ahmet
Medrese will be tried to understand better. As the context is an importan input on reuse
decision, understanding the change of the context is an important criterion for reuse
decisions.

The Original Context:

Sultan Ahmed Medrese was part of the Sultan Ahmet Complex. The complex was
constructed and donated by Sultan Ahmet I between 1609 and 1617 (Aslanapa 2009,
Pg:376-379). The complex which was the largest complex and the most considerable
group of buildings of 17th century (Nayır.1975, Pg:37) (Figures 3.279. and 3.280.). It
consists mosque, sultan pavillion, tabhane (guest house), imaret (public soup kitchen),
primary school (or infant school), hospital, hamam, fountain, sebil, sipahi rooms,
arasta bazaar and dar-ül hadis medrese (hadith medrese) (Charter 10) In “worksite
construction books” some other buildings of the complex were also written. The
complex was the main work of the architect Sedefkar Mehmet Ağa, who was the
official master builder of the period (Nayır 1975, Pg:39,44).

268
 Figure 3.279. Sultan Ahmet Medrese with its complex in Ayverdi Map, 1848

Figure 3.280. Site Plan showing 17th century situation (Nayir 1975)

The mosque was dominant part of the complex and very famous with its six minarets
and decorative blue tiles. Thuse, it was known as Blue Mosque. Hospital, bakery and
imaret were at the northern side of Hippodrome, At Meydanı (Figures 3.281. and
3.282.). Hünkar Pavillion was on the south-east corner of the mosque and connected
to it. Arasta, sebil and hamam were at the south of the mosque. (Aslanapa.2009:384-
387). Primary school was adjacent of the eastern garden wall of the mosque from
269
outside (Çobanoğlu, p. 76) (Figures 3.283. and 3.284.). Darulkurra and tomb were
located at the north-east corner of the garden of the mosque and they were placed in a
separate small garden. (Figure 3.285).

In Antique Roman and Byzantine period, on the place of Sultan Ahmet Complex, there
were the Great Byzantine Palace. Sultan Ahmet Medrese was stood on south end of
the historic hippodrome, next to both antique Agora and on Zeuxippus Bath remains
and opposite to the Hagia Sophia75 (Figure 3.286). This area was the most important
social, cultural, health and sports center of the Eastern Roman and Byzantine people
until 7th century. (Muslubaş 2007:129) Between 7th and 15th centuries the area was
gradually turned into a ruin.76

Figure 3.281. Atmeydanı in a gravure, the mosque and the tomb on left, bakery and
imaret in the middle, Ibrahim Pasha Palace on right (anonymus)

75
The Hippodrome and the Baths were started to be built by Septimus Severus at the end of 2th century
on antique Acropol. (Muslubaş 2007, p.24-26). With the beginning of big construction work of the
emperor Constantin in 326 B.C., hippodrome and the Zeuxippos Baths were completed and Great
Byzantine Palace was built at the south side of the hippodrome (Muslubaş 2007, p.24-26). Constantin
also constructed Augesteon (agora) on the antique Tetrastoon (agora), Basilica, library and senate
buildings. The buildings in the area were affected from the great fire during the Nika uprising in 532
B.C and were repaired comprehensively (Muslubaş 2007, p.33). Between 532-537 Hagia Sophia was
added to the area by the emperor Justinien I. (Muslubaş 2007, p.122)
76
After 7th century, as the commercial center shift to Goldern Horn site, this area began to loose its
importance and had substantially been demolished with internal rebellions by 8th century (Muslubaş
2007, p.36-39). However, the Zeuxippos Baths were still used in 8th century (Duyuran, R. 1957) In
13th century, the whole city was demolished by crusades and their valuable parts were moved to their
countries or used for new buildings (Muslubaş 2007, p.41). Crusades continued until 1261, then most
of the building were restored (Altun 2009, p.12). According to İbn-I Batuta, in 1344, most of the
governmental buildings were made of timber (Muslubaş 2007, p.42). The governors were living in
monumental palace-houses, but on the other hand, the people were living in simple timber houses or in
a ruin at the end of the 14th century (Muslubaş 2007, p.42-43).

270
 Figure 3.282. Bakery and imaret from Atmeydanı in a gravure (anonymus)

Figure 3.283. Mosque, primary school and the medrese, 1920's (Eski İstanbul
Resimleri)

Figure 3.284. (left) Primary school and fountain, 1920's (archive of DGF)
Figure 3.285. (right) Tomb and Darulkurra and partially medrese from the minaret of
the Blue Mosque 1920's (archive of DGF)

271
Figure 3.286. Sultan Ahmet Medrese With Its Complex (yellow framed buildings) on
Sultanahmet Archaeologic Area with Roman and Byzantine Period Buildings
(without color and written in blue) and Ottoman Buildings (with green hatch);
adapted from the map by Ali Muslubaş (Muslubaş 2007).

After conquest of Constantin by Ottomans in 1453, great construction and urbanization

works begun with the convertion of Hagia Sophia into the mosque and two minaret
additions (Muslubaş 2007, p.49). Then, the Hagia Sophia Medrese was added in 1466
(Kütükoğlu 2000, p.42) and the Topkapı Palace and Sur-u Sultani was started to be
built in 1478 (Muslubaş 2007, p.49) and the palace was extended with pavilions and
other buildings until 19th century (Ertuğ 2012). In 1491, Firuzağa Mosque was
constructed at the north-east corner of the hippodrome ruin. The Hippodrome was used
in the reign of Ottoman by sultans for weddings and ceremonies, by jannisaries for
uprising and by people for meetings (Yücel 1966) and called Atmeydanı in Ottoman
period (Yücel 1966)

In 1509, after a big earthquake, known as Small Doomsday, most of the building in
the city were collapsed and a great construction work was started (Muslubaş 2007:49).
İbrahim Paşa Palace in 1521 (Muslubaş 2007, p.49), Hürrem Sultan Hamam of Mimar
Sinan in 1556 (Cansever 2005, p.241) and Caferağa (Soğukkuyu) Medrese in 1559,
were built on and around the ruins of Great Palace, Hippodrome and Zeuxippos Baths.
Two minarets of Hagia Sophia were added by Mimar Sinan and the Sultans tombs
were built west side of the mosque (Cansever 2005, p.349). Sinan also built some other
palaces around hippodrome for notable executives and ladies such as; Kaptan-I Derya
Ahmet Paşa, Sinan Paşa and Sokullu Mehmet Paşa, (Muslubaş 2007, p.49 and 123)

272
and Ayşe Sultan (Aslanapa.2009, p.376;). In Matrakçı Nasuh’s 1533 dated miniature
of Istanbul, the area was full of one and two storey buildings, but the place of antique
Agora was still clear (Figure 3.287.). In following years numbers of complexes,
mosques, mesjids, medreses, hamams, khans and tombs were built around the place.
Some important ones of these; Sokullu Mehmet Paşa Complex in 1571 (Cansever
2005, p.351), Kızlarağası Medrese in 1582 (Kurşun 2008, p.143), Hadım Hasan Paşa
Complex in 1595-96 (Kurşun 2008, p.151) and Vani Efendi Medrese in 1598 (Kurşun
2008, p.101, Kütükoğlu 2000).

Figure 3.287. Sultanahmet Area in Matrakçı Nasuh’s Miniature (Matrakçı Nasuh

1533)

In 17th century, Sultan Ahmet Complex was added to the area between 1609-1620 after
a great expropriation (Nayır.1975, p.37) (Figure 3.280.). In order to construct the
Sultan Ahmet Complex, Ayşe Sultan Palace, palaces of vezirs, houses, bakery and
gardens were expropriated and destroyed (Nayır.1975, p.37). In 1617, the mosque,
the sultan pavillion, surrounding walls of the mosque, the primary school, the arasta,
three of five sebils (Nayır.1975, p.46, Çobanoğlu 1996, p.62 and 63) and the hamam
of arasta (Çobanoğlu 1996, p.62 and 63) were completed. The medrese, the imaret, the
tomb with its garden walls and also two sebils in the walls, the darulkurra –Koran

273
school and the hospital with its hamam were compleded in 1619/1620 after the death
of the donor (Çobanoğlu 1996, p.62-64). Sultan Ahmet Complex was the biggest
sultan mosque of the whole Ottoman territory and the last example of 16 th century
Sultan complexes (Nayır 1975).

Changing Context from Its Construction until 2016:

In 18th century, muvakkithane was added to the Sultan Ahmet Complex at the corner
of the garden walls of the tomb, on the place of demolished sebil (Çobanoğlu 1996:65).

In 18th century also Cedid Mehmet Efendi Medrese around 1705 (Kütükoğlu 2000,
p.39) and Sultan Ahmet III Fountain in 1729 were constructed. In the second half of
the century, The Valide Sultan (Vani Efendi) Medrese was built at east side of the
Caferağa Medrese.

In 19th century the area was full of houses (Figures 3.288. and 3.289.). In this century,
on some of the buildings of the complex located at the end of Hippodrome that had
been demolished or collapsed before, Hamidiye Commercial School was built.
Darülfünun and Tapu Kadastro Headquarter were also constructed in the Sultanahmet
area.

Figure 3.288. Mosque from Haqia Sophia and district 1910's (archive of DGF)

274
Figure 3.289. Medrese and district surrounding it in 1900's (Eski İstanbul Resimleri)

In the Republic Period, court building was constructed at south of the Saint Euphemia
Basilica ruins and lots of houses reconstructructed or adapted for commercial and
touristic facilities, especially hotels and shops.

The area was affected from fires in centuries; “Big Istanbul Fire” in 1660, Sultanahmet
Fire” in 1738, “Hagia Sophia Fires” in 1912 and 1913 (IMM) and “İshak Paşa Fire” in
1912 (Duyuran, R. 1957). After İshak Paşa Fire, the houses between Hagia Sophia and
Sultanahmet Complex have never been constructed (Chart 10.1/Figures 3 and 3a). The
area was landscaped as a park in 1932.

In 2016, Sultanahmet Area was the most important historic, archaeological and
architectural touristic center of Istanbul. The area, which is known as “Sultan Ahmet
Archaeological Park” since 1953 was also one of the four World Heritage Sites of
Istanbul since 1995 (Figure 3.290). Within the site, there were 990 listed heritage
assets 207 of which -that was 21%- were foundation heritage (IHMR 2011, pg.45)
(Figure 3.291). Sultan Ahmet Medrese was within and part of this universally
important site. On the other hand, Sultan Ahmet Complex was declared within the
“Sultanahmet Square Tourism Center” by Ministry of Tourism and Culture in
accordance with “Tourism Encouragement Law”, law no 2634. The complex was also
the source the name of the district Sultanahmet.

275
Figure 3.290. Sultan Ahmet Medrese (in detail) in Sultanahmet Archaeologic Park in
Prost Plan, 1940

Figure 3.291. Sultan Ahmet Archaeologic Park as World Heritage Site (IHMR 2011)

Except for the mosque and the tomb, functions of buildings of the complex were
changed and they were using by different institutions and some of those were either
demolished (Nayır.1975, p.47, Çobanoğlu, p.65) or unused in 2016. Imaret, kitchen
and bakery were used by Sultanahmet Vocational Trade High School for cultural and
educational purposes. Hospital was demolished in 19th century and the high school
building has been constructed instead. Primary school was used by an association as
cultural-art and educational center. Sultan’s lodge was used by DGF as office.
Darulkurra, fountains and sebil were not used. Today, Sultan Ahmet Medrese was
legended as cultural facilities area in Urban Conservation Plan. It was used by Sultan
Ahmet Foundation for social- cultural-educational purposes and as headquarter of the
foundation.

276
In the foundation charter, it was defined that except for holiday days, lectures would
be given four days a week in Sultan Ahmet Medrese77 (Charter 10). There was no
information about the 17th century situation, however in 1792, 72 people were staying
at the medrese; 4 of them were muderrises, 2 mulazims and rest were sutents. As the
medrese had a floor addition in rooms at that date, the rooms were not in good
condition. Moreover, half of the rooms were shared by two or three students.78 In 1914,
Sultan Ahmet Medrese was still active; 80 students were staying at the medrese and
15 students were staying other houses ouside. In 1918, education was continuing in
the medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000, 36-39). During the Independence War, the medrese was
using as an armoury, while the mosque was using as a barrack.

In 1935, Sultan Ahmet Medrese began to be used as the storage of manuscripts of

Ottoman Archives of Prime Ministry (Kütükoğlu 2000, 39). In 1962, DGF attempted
to evacuate the medrese to allocate it to a scientific institution for a proper use,
however, the current allocation was extended for next 50 years with the insistence of
the user institution, until 2012 (DGF document-11). In 2010, the medrese was
evacuated. In 2010, Sultan Ahmet Medrese was granted to Sultan Ahmet Foundation
by DGF to be used for social and cultural facilities with the condition of restoration
for the next 10 years.

3.10.2. Original Architectural and Functional Features

In this section, the original architectural features of the Sultan Ahmet Medrese will be
documented as main components layout, courtyard and revaks, the classroom and the
eivan, the rooms and the service space in the aspects of spatial characteristics,
including dimentions, volume, decorative elements and space organization, as well as

77
According to the 1613-1614 dated foundation charter, there should be two medreses in the complex;
“medrese” and “darulhadis medrese”. Each medrese had 15 students (Charter 10), however there is no
information in the charter about numbers of rooms for both medreses. In addition, there are no other
medrese building had been built within the complex (Nayır 1975). Darulhadis medrese were active until
18th century. However, in 1792 dated medrese book and later books, it did not mentioned about
darulhadis medrese (Kütükoğlu 2000).
Together with this information, considering the original functional context of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese,
as it is explained in the chapter 3.9.1. referring to Cahit Baltacı, 8 rooms of the medrese was used by
Darülhadis students and other 8 rooms was used by medrese students; Sultan Ahmet Medrese could
include both medreses as institution in one building; “darülhadis medrese” and “medrese”.
This substraction means that Sultan Ahmet Medrese was assigned for 30 resident students in 24 rooms
in original.
78
One student was the room owner as he was old timer, the others were freshers. (Kütükoğlu 2000, 36)

277
original spatial and functional relations between those components. As the
architectural features and the spatial capacity are two of the most important inputs on
reuse decision, understanding the original architectural features is important to keep
the significance of the bulding for reuse decisions.

Layout: The Sultan Ahmet Medrese was a self standing building and it was located at
northeast of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque (Figure 3.280). It was reached by a narrow
dead-end street between the medrese and the garden wall of the tomb and darulkurra
(Figure 3.292). End of the street there was a small gate in the garden wall of the mosque
connecting the medrese to the mosque. In the middle of this small street, entrance of
the medrese was on the south. On the northern side, there was a small garden gate of
the darulkurra.

Figure 3.292. Sultan Ahmet Medrese in German Blues, 1909-1913

Sultan Ahmet Medrese was a rectangular building with rectangular type layout (Figure
3.293). It was 42.39x33.57m from outside. The height was 5.84 m. The entrance was
a gradually simple and located in the middle of the façade facing through the dead-end
street.

278
 Figure 3.293. Plan showing the original architectural and functional features of
Sultan Ahmet Medrese applied on Restitution Plan of Sultan Ahmet Medrese.
(restitution Project from archive of Anfora Architecture, 2011)

The medrese was constructed with fine cut stone from outside and courtyard façade.
Lower parts of revak facades were also made from fine cut stone but upper parts were
made from rubble stone and brick. The rooms, classroom and revaks were covered
with domes, but the service space were covered with vault. The walls of the rooms and
the inner surfaces of the domes and vaults were plastered. The rooms and the
classroom were paved with hegzagonal brick. Revaks were paved with big cut stones.
Courtyard pavement had already been changed with hegzagonal brick in past repairs.

The Courtyard and Revaks: The medrese had a rectangular courtyard 22.88x12.93m
in sizes with ablution fountain in the middle of it. Approximately 4.63m width revaks
surrounded the courtyard from four sides.

Ablution fountain in the courtyard had an octagonal roof once, being carried by eight
small marble columns with baklava shaped capitals. The fountain was circular and
made of elaborated marble with round profiles.

There was also a well in the courtyard as an architectural element (Figure 3.293).
Except for these, there were two, marble caved, decorated, stand alone, movable

279
architectural elements related with drinking water facility in the medrese; a sebil pool
and a small size marble water tank (Figures 3.294.-3.296.).

Figure 3.294. Carved marble water tank in front of the ablution fountain, 2011

Figure 3.295. Carved marble water tank in front of the ablution fountain, 2016

280
 Figure 3.296. Drinking water pool in front of the ablution fountain, 2016

The Classroom and The Entrance Eivan: The projected positioning of the classroom
was unique for rectangular layout in Ahunbay’s medrese typology. Classroom was on
the north corner of the building facing through Sultanahmet Park and Hagia Sophia.
Classroom was 7.6x7.48m, and 6.87m in height up to the profile of the drum. It was
three steps, 51 cm higher than revaks level. There was a mihrap and three big bookcase
cupboards inside. 16 big windows were located on north, east and south facades in two
row order; six windows on east and north, four windows on south façade on both sides
of mihrap niche in symmetric position. Lower windows had profiled marble frame
from both sides. In outer frames, there were lokmali iron fences. Outer faces of the
windows there were wood made frameworks with wings, while in inner faces
kündekari wooden covers with two wings. Upper windows had stabilized stucco
frames with small glasses on both sides, some of inner frames were decorated with
coloured glasses. Entrance door had a kundekari woodmade double winged door. It
was framed with profiled marble. Transition elements were very plane pendentives
with no decoration. Classroom dome was decorated with calligraphy and hand paints
at the top.

The entrance was an eivan in between the rooms order on north facade. It was
3.75x4.5m in plan section.

281
The Rooms: In Sultan Ahmet Medrese, there were 24 rooms surrounding the revaks
from four sides. The rooms had almost the same sizes; approximately 3.75x3.75m in
width, 5.25 m in height up to dome profile. They were about 14 sqm. They faced both
the courtyard and outside except for north east side rooms. Typical rooms had six
windows, three at bottom, three at top. One bottom and one top window faced towards
courtyard. In addition, a fireplace, and two niches on both sides of the fireplace was
typical for rooms (Figure 3.293). However, one room had only one niche, four rooms
have three niches and one room had four niches. Four rooms on north east wing had
no windows facing through outside, they had only two windows; one bottom and one
at the top facing through courtyard. So, they were darker and more humid than the
other rooms. Windows of Sultan Ahmet Medrese were bigger than the other medreses’
windows. All the bottom windows have also lokmali iron fence, even the ones on
courtyard sides. Room doors were made of wood and two winged.

Revaks were carried by 16 round shaped grey marble column with baklava decorated
marble capitals. Revak arches were made with alternate cut stone; red breccia and
white lime stone.

The Service Space (Toilets and Laundry): Service space was at the south corner
(Figure 3.293). It was 8.44x3.62 m in size and covered with two domes. There were
six rectangular crenels 3.8 m up to ground level and six small light holes in the domes
for ighting and ventilation. Original toilet cabins were not surviving in 2016.

3.10.3. Refunctioning Interventions and Rehabilitation Works

The significance of the medrese, the importance of the location and its considerable
spatial capacity are the most important inputs effecting refunctioning interventions of
Sultan Ahmet Medrese. In this section, reuse interventions made on the medrese will
be documented chronologically under two titles, past and the last refunctioning works
and interventions. Thus, it will be understood well the change in the contemporary
conservative reuse approach.

282
Past Refunctioning Works and Interventions: Although the Sultan Ahmet Medrese
was a one storey building in original, it was two storied in 1792 and had 48 rooms, 24
of were downstairs (tahtani), 24 of upstairs (fevkani) (Kütükoğlu 2000). This
demonstrated that all the rooms had floor additions around 18th century. In the site
surveys made during 2010 and 2011 before restoration, there was neither an
information nor a trace about that floor addition, only the upper windows with wings
facing through revaks. Thus, probably the floor addition was made of wood, and it was
probably burnt during the fire or dismantled between the fire and 2010.79

In 19th century, the medrese had several repairs in 1843, 1844, 1845, 1866, 1870,
1871, 1873 and 1883. These repairs were mostly about water pipes, lead covers of
domes and local room repairs for both upper and lower sections. Sultan Ahmet
Medrese had been affected with 1894 earthquake and had two comprehensive repairs
in 1900 and 1902-1909 (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.36-38).

At the beginning of 20th century, Sultan Ahmet Medrese was affected from İshak Paşa
Fire in 1912 and immediately repaired once again. The medrese was one of the very
few medreses that was in very good condition in 1914 inspection (Figure 3.297). The
last repair of Ottoman period was in 1916-1917 (Kütükoğlu 2000, p.39)

Figure 3.297. Sultan Ahmet Medrese in aerial photo around 1933-193580 (archive of
Halil Onur)

79
Similar wood-made floor additions existing in the two rooms of Hacı Beşir Ağa Medrese in Cağaloğlu
was investigated during the site survey made in 2011 (see Chapter 4 for figures).
80
The demolished building in the right bottom corner was the Ministry of Justice, old Darulfunun. The
photo shows the situation after it has burnt in a fire at 3-4 December 1933 night. (Öğretmenler Vakfı)

283
In 1935, the medrese had a comprehensive repair to be refunctioned as storage
(Kütükoğlu 2000, p.39) by General Directorate of Archives of Prime Ministry. Within
this repair, courtyard was covered with a metal roof supported by 16 reinforced
concrete columns. Probably, courtyard was also covered within the same repair due to
the function (Figures 3.298. and 3.299.). Later, the octagonal roof of ablution fountain
was dismantled probably before 1962 and some interventions were made to the roof
for sun light control in time (Figure 3.300), and some remains from wooden ceiling
and pavement from recent unpermitted repairs for officers in the room located at the
south west of the entrance eivan (Figure 3.301.). Because, General Directorate of
Archives of Prime Ministry had commited in 1962 dated allocation protocol with the
condition of “not to make any change in the medrese without permission of DGF”
during the 1962-2012 allocation (DGF document-12). In 1966, General Directorate of
Archives of Prime Ministry applied to DGF to repair the medrese, however, except for
an inspection report for the current situation and a measured drawing plan prepared by
DGF technicians, there was no document about any repair after that application. The
situation was still protected in 1966 (DGF document-13).

Figure 3.298. Sultan Ahmet Medrese as archive store, after 1935 (archive of DGF)

284
Figure 3.299. Sultan Ahmet Medrese as archive store, after 1935 (archive of DGF)

Figure 3.300. Courtyard of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2011, before restoration

285
 Figure 3.301. The situation of unpermitted past interventions in the room on south
west side of the entrance eivan of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2011, before restoration

According to archive documents, backyard of the medrese was occupied by an

unpermitted barracks around 1960’s and used by a family (Figure 3.302.). Afterwards,
the barracks were removed.

Figure 3.302. Chadastral map showing unpermitted occupations in backyard of

Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 1969. (archive of DGF)

286
Until 2010, there was no intervention in Sultan Ahmet Medrese. The situation has been
kept for 75 years.

The Last Refunctioning Works and Interventions: In 2016, when the Sultan Ahmet
Medrese was surveyed, it was used for social and cultural activities in the name of
Istanbul Sultan Ahmet Foundation by the same NGO.

The last repair including reuse interventions was made between 2012-2014. The reuse
process was started with evacuation of the medrese in 2010. Then continued with
signing the granting protocol between DGF and Istanbul Governorate. In 2012, in
accordance with the conditions of allocation protocol, all necessary projects and
reports were prepared by user, financed by Istanbul Governorate, application was
tendered and controlled by Fatih Municipality in accordance with the repair protocol
signed between DGF and Fatih Municipality. Oversight of the site were in DGF and
KUDEB of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

Projects and reports were approved with the council IV decision no 2011/4747 in
15.08.2011 without any change or suggestion. According to approved restoration
project, except for conservative interventions, the medrese was restored in accordance
with the restitution project. In addition, existing courtyard roofing was decided to be
kept as a significant addition, ablution fountain roofing was reconstructed and toilets
were reorganized with wall additions (Figures 3.303.-3.306.).

287
Figure 3.303. Reuse interventions applied on plan of restoration Project made in
2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

Figure 3.304. Reuse interventions for toilets applied on C-C Section of restoration
Project made in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

Figure 3.305. Reuse interventions applied on A-A Section of restoration Project

made in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

288
 Figure 3.306. Reuse interventions applied on North-West Facade of restoration
Project made in 2011 (restoration Project from archive of Anfora Architecture)

According to the restoration report, the reason of keeping the courtyard roof was that
“the roof addition of 1935 was one of the rare examples of bolted roof covering
construction additions of the period” and it has no structural problems. Thus, the roof
would be kept but covered with aluminum panels instead of existing curved sheets, as
aluminum was a compatible material with lead covers of the domes. The polycarbon
made roof windows will be made at alongside the roof ridge for both ventilation and
prevention of the greenhouse effect just like the roof windows of Istanbul Commerce
Stock Market, Hamidiye Medrese (Figure 3.307.) (Restoration Report of Sultan Ahmet
Medrese 2011).

Figure 3.307. 1920's Courtyard Roofing of Hamidiye Medrese in Eminönü,

(Restoration Report of Sultan Ahmet Medrese 2011)

289
After that the application of the projects had been started, a structural report was
ordered to Istanbul Technical University by the contractor. According to the structural
report keeping the unqualified existing roof cover was considered as dangerous and, it
was suggested to be removed completely together with its reinforced concrete
columns.81 In the same report, it was also expressed that “ if a roof cover is essential
for new use, it is suggested to make a new roof made of laminated timber/stainless
steel prestressed beams and preferably a transparent cover….. It will be suitable to
fixed the roof beams either to revaks or to columns to be constructed at a distance
from the revaks enough not to interfere with them visually.” (Figure 3.308.). New use
had already been decided in allocation protocol, however, a revised restoration project
was prepared without any explanation about vitality of courtyard roofing for the new
use.

Figure 3.308. 3D model of proposedstainless still roof covering in structural report ,

2012 (Archive of Conservation Council IV of Istanbul)

With the council IV decision no 2012-631, revised restoration project was approved.
According to this revision, courtyard covering system was changed and a glass door
was added to the entrance eivan (Figures 3.309.- 3.311.). Cables for installations were
lyed down a channel surrounding the revaks (Figures 3.303 and 3.305.). Radiators
were placed for heating in both rooms and the revaks (Figures 3.303 and 3.312.).
Lightining system was installed on the walls of rooms by renewing the plasters,
classroom and revaks in front of the classroom as well as on new roof structure in the
courtyard (Figures 3.309., 3.310. and 3.313.). Classroom was also illuminated with a

81
The structural report was prepared by Prof. Dr. Feridun Çılı, Res. Ass. Dr. Fatih Sütçü and Res. Ass.
Dr. Y. Hanifi Gedik in January 2012 on behalf of Istanbul Technical University.

290
chandelier. (Figure 3.314.) Electric cables for CCTV and speakers were embedded into
joints of stone masonry revak walls as it was in Rabi Medrese revaks facade. (Figure
3.315.).

Figure 3.309. Courtyard roofing and reconstructed fountain roof, 2015

Figure 3.310. Seminar hall (courtyard), 2015

291
 Figure 3.311. Glass seperation of entrance eivan on revaks side, 2015

Figure 3.312. Radiator covered with a wooden furniture in revaks, 2015

292
Figure 3.313. Room used for traditional illumination art workshops, 2015

Figure 3.314. Meeting room (classroom), 2015

293
 Figure 3.315. Electric installations on revak walls, 2015

During the application, some changes and additions were also made out of approved
project; a glass eave with stainless steel supporters was added to the entrance door,
bookcase niches were furnished with glass shelf system with glass covers and the name
of the user foundation has been nailed onto the important northeast façade of the
medrese, looking to Sultanahmet Park and the Hagia Sophia Mosque. (Figures 3.316.
and 3.317.) The entrance of the medrese was strictly controlled from a security cabin
in the entrance garden and only participants or related people were allowed to enter
(Figure 3.318.). A generator was placed at the backyard (Figures 3.303. and 3.319.).

294
Figure 3.316. Main entrance and a steel made construction fixed to the facade for a
shelter, 2015

Figure 3.317. Garden (backyard) from East and name plate nailed to the cut stone
facade, 2015

295
 Figure 3.318. Security cabin in front of the medrese next to the tomb wall, 2016

Figure 3.319. Generator at the back garden, 2015

New facilitate of the medrese was both to be the headquarter of the user foundation
and the place for its social-cultural-educational organisations for university students.
The scholarship issues were managed in administrative offices and a desk in revaks.
Some of the lectures of member scholars, weekly lectures, traditional fine arts courses
and private studying spaces were rooms. The courtyard was decorated and organized
as a seminar hall for wide participated lectures and seminars. These seminars were
mostly organized once a month or a couple of weeks. The courtyard was also reserved
for some other foundations seminars when it was demanded. For the sunlight control
which was essential for these uses, an automatic curtain system has been designed
within the roof. However, the ablution fountain and its reconstructed roof was an

296
obstacle for participants to see the scene. Revaks on north east side of the courtyard
were rearranged as a scene for projections with a separator membrane. Behind it, the
kitchen got larger gragually through revaks for need of extra space; because the user
foundation was managing dormitories in different buildings and in different districts.
Thus, the medrese was using as the common kitchen of those dormitories in 2015.
Having been completed the structural restoration works, user refurnished and
reorganized the spaces without any interior design project (Figures 3.313., 3.314.,
3.320.-3.325. and 3.328.).

Figure 3.320. Room used as office, 2015

297
Figure 3.321. Room used as lecture room, 2015

Figure 3.322. Room used as kitchen, 2015

298
 Figure 3.323. Room used for traditional calligraphy art workshop, 2015

Figure 3.324. Room used for security system control, 2015

Figure 3.325. Reorganisation of toilets, 2015

In 2016, the user rechanged the decoration of classroom and kitchen, turned a lecture
room into a library and reorganized revaks for lectures and meetings for changing
needs (Figures 3.303. and 3.326.-3.329.). It was seen that some of the furnitures were
forced to placed into rooms and some of them had to be cutted in order to be placed in
front of the glass covered bookcase niches (Figure 3.323.).

299
 Figure 3.326. Library, 2016

Figure 3.327. Classroom decoration of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2015 (left) and
2016 (right)

Figure 3.328. Reorganisation of south west revaks in 2015 (left) and 2016 (right)

300
Figure 3.329. One of rooms of Sultan Ahmet Medrese refunctioned as kitchen, the
situation in 2015 (left) and in 2016 (right)

301
302
 CHAPTER IV

EVALUATING the IMPACTS of REUSE of OTTOMAN MEDRESES &

PROPOSALS FOR REUSE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE BUILDINGS

In the following sections of this chapter, the effects of “refunctioning interventions”

on the architectural character of the selected medreses will be evaluated. The subtitles
of the evaluation will mainly be formed in accordance with the subtitles of the Chapter
III; the context, architectural and functional features of the medreses and use and
comfort conditions. An overall evaluation will also be made considering the general
criterias on handling the reuse processes discussed in the Chapter I and the post
refunctioning process, so that it will help to understand the effects of before and after
inputs on refunctioning. Together with these, the overall reuse approaches of all the
existing medreses which were reviewed in the Chapter II will be used to check or to
compae the results where it was needed.

4.1. Evaluating the Adaptive Reuse of Selected Medreses

Analysis on possible functional diversity of suitable uses considering architectural and

environmental characteristics of building’s and needs of both users and social
environment was essential. In general, heritage assets were recommended to be used
for socially, culturally and economically useful purposes (Feilden 2003, p. 277).

The context, that includes all the social and environmental inputs of the heritage, was
one of the essential topics that strongly effects the functions of the medreses, as well
as the refunctioning of heritage buildings (Table 4.1).

Introverted hierarchy of room-revak-courtyard, in other words sequence of closed

space-semi open space-open space from outer shell to the core, was the main character
defining feature of the traditional Ottoman medreses. The typical architectural layout
of Ottoman medreses was composed of classroom, rooms, revaks and courtyard. In
addition, the medreses have attached or detached service space, wet space as toilets

303
and laundry. As the toilets were mostly designed as detached buildings in the
backyards of the medreses in original, they could not exist in 2000’s. Some of Ottoman
medreses may have an eivan as a semi open classroom. Another characteristic of
Ottoman medreses was being one storey buildings. In addition, dome coverings of
rooms and revaks and order of the domes with chimneys from outdoor perception were
also another architectural character of monumental Ottoman medreses.

Style of use and the spatial comfort conditions were affected from some architectural
and structural features and they effect the spatial quality for the users. Dome covering
of the closed spaces, that were rooms and classrooms, contributes a special acoustic
character to the interior of the medreses. Fireplaces and niches as interior architectural
elements make the rooms private residences. Together with the dimensions of the
classrooms, bookcases, as big scaled niches with wooden covers, and mihrap niches,
even it may be seen in some rwere examples, also distinguish the classrooms from
rooms for new use. The window orders, numbers and the positions of the rooms and
the classroom also effects the spatial comfort of these closed spaces, in terms of
sunlighing, natural air-conditioning and humidity.

Handling a proper reuse process was another essential input to decide the most proper
function for reuse of the medreses. The choice of the most proper new function to a
medrese means the decision of most protective and sustainable way to convey the
heritage building to the future. Unfortunately, there were no accepted refunctioning
process or a guideline for refunctioning of heritage buildings in Turkey, For this
reason, a careful research have been done to understand applied refunctioning
methodologies for the heritage buildings firstly, so that it could be possible to follow
a proper process while assessing the refunctioning of medreses.

The management or the maintenance plan was the complementary part of conservation
process and it was essential for sustainability of a qualified use of historic buildings
protecting the character defining features. In order to sustain a successful reuse for a
medrese building, at least a maintanence plan was compulsory to know the critical
points of the building needed to be checked in certain periods.

304
4.1.1. The Context

The contex is an important criterion for the refunctioning decision of historical

buildings. There is also a mutual effect between the context and the new use. Thus, the
relationship between the context and new use seemed as an important criterion and
evaluated case by case in this title.
Beyazıt Medrese: Beyazıt Medrese was part of a Sultan complex that gives its name
to the square in which it was located. The area was an important and central part of the
city during the Roman Period, called as Forum Tauri. In 2015, Beyazıt Square and
Beyazıt District were among the most important historical, touristic, social, cultural,
educational and commercial part of Istanbul (Figure 4.1.). The context of the medrese
has continuously been an important location all through the history.

On the other hand, Beyazıt Medrese had been using as “Foundation Calligraphic Art
Crafts Museum” for the last 83 years by 2015. This long-term use also made stronger
the context contributing a memorial value to the medrese. The spectacular character
of the environmental context as an open-air museum and the adopted name of
the building as “Foundation Calligraphic Art Crafts Museum” have a strong
effect on keeping the museum use of the Beyazıt Medrese.

Figure 4.1. Beyazıt Square, 2023 (IMM 2023)

Atik Ali Paşa Medrese: Throughout its history, Atik Ali Paşa Medrese has been
located in the most important imperial, commercial and cultural axis of Istanbul as the

305
main street, Divanyolu, connecting the administrative center to the inner parts during
the both Byzantine and Ottoman states. Although the medrese and its environment
supposed to some radical structural changes in its history, both in building and the
urban scale, the environmental context had still been kept its importance as the most
important historic and touristic zone of Istanbul in 2015. The historical location had
also kept being a cultural center. Parallel with this, since the Atik Ali Paşa Medrese
began to lose its original function in 1915, it has been subjected to NGO activities for
years. The last user NGO has been using the building for 29 years for social and
cultural activities. The conserved environmental context as a cultural axis for
centuries supports to keep the function for a long time. Long term use resulted in
the building to be adopted by the user and became the brand of the user NGO
(Figure 4.2.).

Figure 4.2. The context of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese from Yeniçeriler Street (old
Divanyolu), 2011

Haseki Medrese: Haseki Medrese had an advantage of being part of a group of

building in strong connection around a landscaped garden. This helps to keep the close
environmental context protected. The last long-lasting function of the medrese before
the last refunctioning decision had also integrated with the structure similar to the Atik
Ali Paşa Medrese. Haseki Medrese, as the assigned function was very close to the

306
original use in terms of style of education, the context supports the new use as
advanced Quran training center. The rooms as private office spaces for trainees and
the classroom as library were refunctioned with close uses to the original.
Besides, the advantage of being in a group of building, offers needed spaces for
administration and service, there was no need to reserve main spaces of the
medrese, rooms and the classroom, for different necessities.

Although the last refunctioning decision had been taken for a new context for the
whole group, the strong functional and memorial integration of the medrese
resulted in to rechange the new function to the previous in the post refunctioning
period.

Şehzade Medrese: Being part of an important and big conceptual programmed Sultan
complex was an advantage for the Şehzade Medrese in terms of being in a kept and
protected environmental context with a beautiful and historical landscape. Big spatial
capacity and artistic ornamentations were also advantages for the last refunctioning
decision creating its significance. In addition, the secondary yards supports the new
function for needs of additional buildings construction without giving a damage to the
architectural features.

The last function, a socio-cultural center for university students including

international fair activities, may be suitable with the context of the medrese.

Rüstem Paşa Medrese: Building scale context of Rüstem Paşa Medrese with its
unique layout and the big spatial capacity was more effective on the refunctioning
decision rather than the environmental context of commercial zone for merchants.
However, while only the spatial capacity taken into account for refunctioning,
architectural character may be ignored. Conservative decisions of authorized
institutions towards keeping the character defining features of the medrese was one of
the most important factors forming the new function within the context. The context
both environmental and building scale had no effect on reuse decision of Rüstem
Paşa Medrese, except for the spatial capacity advantage.

307
Rabi Medrese: Rabi Medrese had an exceptional significance as being a part of
Süleymaniye Complex that was one of the largest and the most important Sultan
complexes of Ottoman Period built by the famous architect Mimar Sinan, as having an
extraordinary layout due to the tophography, as well as being in an exceptional location
with a beautiful and pitoresk panorama throughout its history (Figure 4.3.). In addition,
its context had kept its importance in 2015 being within a World Heritage Urban
Conservation Area and being in a very close location to universities. Limited and
compatible use that was decided and designed with scientific approach including
final interior decisions by an interdisciplinary work team, as well as a respectful
use taken considering the worldwide importance and unique features of the
medrese by a distinguished user institution helped to protect the values of the
medrese and supported keeping the sustainability. The context positively affected
and supported the new use decision of Rabi Medrese, as cultural and academic
center of TUBA.

Figure 4.3. The context of Rabi Medrese in 2023 (Hürriyet news)

Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese: Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese belongs to one of very important
complexes of Istanbul as well as important works of Mimar Sinan. Between 1914-
2000’s, the environmental context has radically changed with Galataport Project and

308
turned into a touristic, recreative, cultural and commercial area. Radical functional
changes in the close environmental context effected the refunctioning process of the
medrese. On the other hand, the stand-alone medrese having no connection with its
complex was capable of refunctioning regardless of the context of other parts of the
complex. Being a touristic, cultural, commercial and recreative zone, the
environmental context had positive effect on refunctioning of Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese as a cultural center.

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese: The medrese was within Süleymaniye World Heritage Site
and stands on a very special location below the Rabi and Salis medreses having the
same panorama with them. However, the closer environmental context was very poor
in 2016. Siyavuş Paşa Medrese brought a value to the area with its own context; formed
with its extraordinary architectural character, careful restoration and the museum-
gallery function. The branch museum function as prayer beads museum was in
competence with the environmental context around the Süleymaniye Complex,
where lots of traditional and touristic prayer-beads shops were still active in.

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese: Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese was on historical Divanyolu
axis and very close to the Atik Ali Paşa Medrese. Thus, it has the same environmental
context with it. Historical and contemporary importance of the location as the most
important center for cultural tourism in 2016 demonstrates the continuity of the
importance of environmental context. Besides, the individual position and type of
entrance of the classroom strongly distinguished its building context and create the
significance of the medrese. These features were used an advantage of individual
refunctioning for broad participated seminars even for tourist. The classroom of Sinan
Paşa Medrese reused considering both the unique position within layout, its original
function and the existing context, while the rooms section used for administrative and
research center. The context has a positive effect on reuse of Koca Sinan Paşa
Medrese.

Sultan Ahmet Medrese: Sultan Ahmet Medrese was the most significant medreses
of Istanbul with its very special environmental context, as well as with its architectural
features and history. The users of Sultan Ahmet Medrese were the university students

309
related with the activities of the user foundation, or other interacted foundations for
social and cultural activities. However, the unique environmental context as one of the
most important World Heritage Sites needs to be considered while refunctioning of a
heritage building in terms of in terms of its tourism potential and accessibility of the
visitors. During refunctioning process of Sultan Ahmet Medrese, significant of the
building and the existing environmental context were ignored.

Evaluating the Adaptive Reuse of the Selected Medreses in Terms of the Context:

In conclusion, power of environmental context has a strong effect on keeping the

compatible uses for years, even those uses enforced the spatial capacity of medreses.
Beyazıt, Atik Ali Paşa, Haseki and Rabi Medreses can be evaluated within this effect.
However, despite its power, environmental context of Sultan Ahmet Medrese was
ignored during refunctioning process following the removal of the previous use.

The strong intrinsic context may also be ignored when the environmental context was
poor. The case of Rüstem Paşa Medrese exemplify this situation well. The strongness
of intrinsic context comes from the unique layout and big spatial potential of the
medrese. If the strong intrinsic context was resulted in the quality of restoration and
the special layout, the context may have a transformative effect on the quality of
environmental building activities as well as it may inspire the quality of reuse of the
medrese. The case of refunctioning of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese may considered as a good
example of this effect.

In other cases, the context, even environmental or intrinsic, had a positive effect on
refunctioning in general.

4.1.2. Architectural Features and Technical Aspects

In this section, physical structural interventions resulted from reuse decisions will be
focused on. The effect of the interventions will be evaluated case by case in
comparison with the contextual results of reuse decision and use and comfort
conditions, as there is a strong relation between these. Detailed analisis is also
documented in the tables case by case in Appendix C, from C.1 to C.10 to understand
this relation better.

310
Beyazıt Medrese: The fact that it has been used as a “caligraphy museum” for a long
time by integrating with the context has a great impact on whether the architectural
character is preserved or not. Having been known as for a long time “Caligraphy
Museum” became a kind of conceptual character definition of the medrese, or
identification of the building. It is an important point that has to be taken into account
while refunctioning, the exhibition of organic art crafts needs some special precautions
and installations, as well as a contemporary museum function needs some extra spaces
for supporting facilities more than existing spatial potential of a medrese.

While the medrese rooms and the classroom have suitable dimensions for both
exhibition and showcases of manuscripts, spatial intervention in revaks with a
framework to be able to get a unified airconditioned museum space negatively effected
the interior architectural character of Beyazıt Medrese. Although the success of the
construction in detail, closure of the revak for better circulation also resulted in the
visual and functional disconnection between the two different character defining
components of the medrese; courtyard and revaks. In addition to this, subdivision of
revaks with frameworks to get needed administrative and supplementary spaces cause
considerable loss of original spatial perception in Beyazıt Medrese.

Original architectural elements of the museum, such as fountain in the middle of

courtyard, well and the sun clock, could exhibit themselves. On the other hand, the
architectural elements in rooms, such as some of niches and the windows were
eliminated due to the sunlight control and display design. Original fireplaces were kept
open to be shown as the characteristic elements of the rooms. The last reuse
interventions were made with a respect to the architectural elements of the
museum without touching them as much as possible. However, overdesing of the
spaces with refurnishing, as a result of compulsion of displaying, administrative
and service needs, had negative effect on the spatial and architectural character
of the medrese.

In addition to this, the exhibition panels in rooms and in revaks interrupt the original
perception of the spaces by ignoring. Overdesign in the spaces used as offices also has
a negative effect on interior architectural character.
Creating an installation channel surrounding the revaks makes easier to load and to
control the electrical and mechanical lines. Installation channel also has a special
solution opportunity for medreses giving a minimum damage to the building.

311
The difficulty of the service space solution was another weeknes of the Beyazıt
Medrese. Locating the toilets underground the courtyard also effected the authenticity
of the landscape of the courtyard negatively.
Plasters on walls and the domes and the pavements were renewed in refunctioning
process. Because, the finishings had also been changed in previous repairs, they gave
an opportunity to keep the underplaster or underfloor installations.
Interior architectural features of the Beyazıt Medrese creates an important part
of its significance. Although the documentation was made carefully and in detail,
as well as refunctioning interventions and installations were constructed in a
respect, interior character of the medrese were affected negatively from the reuse
decisions as a result of functional inappropriateness of existing museum program
with the layout, due to the type and size of the collection. This inappropriateness
also the main reason of incompletion of restoration process, even though the
function became the identity of the building’s itself and of the context. Appendice
C.1. Table 4.1. demonstrates the interaction between the appropriateness of reuse
decisions and appropriateness of technical choices. The table also summarizes that,
success of the reuse depends on the appropriateness of new functional program with
the character and capacity of building at first. Even though the interventions and
installations were made in a success.

Atik Ali Paşa Medrese: To be used both for different activities by diversity of
member groups and for the administrative needs of the user resulted in overdesign of
the medrese. This also caused deterioration on interior architectural character. Use of
backyard for the solution of service spaces construction helps to protect the
architectural character of the medrese.

Creating an installation channel surrounding the revaks makes easier to load and to
control the electrical and mechanical lines, similar to Beyazıt Medrese. Appendice C.2.
Table 4.2. demonstrates the success of the reuse design decisions, interventions and
system installations.

The name of the user “Birlik Vakfı” was known by some users better than the name of
the building for address definition. This was the result of long-term use which was
integrated with the building and the context. The main problem of damaging the

312
interior architectural character of the Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was reuse of rooms
by more people then its capacity due to administrative and group uses by
members of the foundation as a result of the adopted context. The more users and
permanent office uses need extra wet service spaces. Fortunately, the use of
backyard to build some additional service spaces, helps to protect the
architectural character of the medrese. Appendice C.2. Table 4.2. also shows the
importance of appropriateness of need program analisis on reuse decisions space by
space.

Haseki Medrese: The domed rooms were supporting acoustically the Quran recitation
activity. Moreover, the sizes of the rooms also support furnishing for a couple of users
without causing overdesign. The classroom was a proper space for the library use both
in terms of size and being suitable for reversible installations in Haseki Medrese
(Figure 4.4.). The new function did not need space reorganization, overdesign of
overloading installations for compulsory equipment. Being a part of a valuable
group of building was an advantage for a medrese to keep the architectural
features for a proper function with the advantage of limited intervention.
Appendice C.3. Table 4.3. demonstrates the overall appropriateness of reuse decisions
and technical installations. However, the table also demonstrates the importance of
public accessibility and need of an appropriate management plan for a sustainable
proper protection for a group of historical building.

Figure 4.4. The classroom of Haseki Medrese in 2015

313
The situation in 2023: The classroom of Haseki Medrese was using for daily group
lectures by approximately 15-16 students and a teacher. The tables were organized in
U shape (Figure 4.5.). In total, the center has approximately 90 attendees as students.

Rooms were using for variety of purposes. 9 of rooms were using for service facilities;
1 room for mechanical, 1 room for security, 1 room for women staff, 1 room for men
staff, 1 room for store, 4 rooms for other departments’ teachers’ offices. Rest of the
rooms were allocated to the teachers as offices (Figure 4.6.). The revaks were using
for circulation and the courtyard was kept for a recreation area in 2023 (Figure 4.7.).

Information from: Muammer Saraç, the official of the center (23.08.2023)

Figure 4.5. Post refunctioning use of the classroom of Haseki Medrese for group
lectures in 2023 (Private Archive of Muammer Saraç)

314
Figure 4.6. Post refunctioning use of the room on the west side of the classroom as a
teacher's office in Haseki Medrese in 2023 (Private Archive of Muammer Saraç)

Figure 4.7. Courtyard and revaks of Haseki Medrese in 2023 (Private Archive of
Muammer Saraç)

Şehzade Medrese: Large scaled spatial capacity of the Şehzade Medrese with a big
paved courtyard and numerous of rooms supported the international events both for

315
individual researchers and for big scaled groups aimed by the user. The fact that the
user having another administrative center allows the medrese to be used for its
intended function without fulled with inappropriate refurbishment and refurnishing,
but preserving its significance. The original wet spaces also supported the need of
function partially. Fortunately, the backyard offers a proper opportunity to solve need
of extra wet space underground, preventing reorganization of the main spaces.

As the last refunctioning decision had been decided before the last restoration work
started, installations were designed and applied for new function with a conservative
approach, using the existing installation channel, as well as respecting to the
ornamented architectural character of the medrese.

Spatial capacity of the medrese and the existing infrastructure for installations
helped for keeping the layout and the architectural character of the Şehzade
Medrese. In order to keep the originality of the medrese and to prevent the
further harmful deteriorative interventions, it was important to apply a proper
interior design project approved by the Council, as well as careful monitoring by
the owner institution.

The situation in 2023: The reuse decision is still kept in 2023. The rooms were being
allocated temporarily to the university students and academics for research and
educational purposes. The classroom is using for seminars on certain days of the week.
Periodic seminars in English were being organized for African students on Saturdays.

The courtyard is using for fast-breaking dinner events, 4-5 times during the month
Ramadan. For the broad participated events, catering service was used.

The revaks were using only for circulation. Due to the scale of the building, the semi
open circulation space has some comfort problems for users, both for direct connection
to the outside from the rooms and the hot beverage service duration between the
kitchen and the rooms. Thus, a framework project has been designed by the user
considering similar approved implementations on the Architect Sinan’s works.
Information from: Tamer Göde, General Director of Suffa Foundation (23.08.2023)
This need of post refunctioning intervention to close the revaks with a framework
requires to re-evaluate the compatibility of the new function with the significance
of the medrese.

316
Appendice C.4. Table 4.4. demonstrates the success of the reuse design decisions,
interventions and system installations, as well as their effects on sustainability on the
case of reuse of Şehzade Medrese. The table also demonstrates the importance of
appropriate need program that was studied space by space at the beginning of the
process, to understand if the proposed function is compatible with the character of the
medrese. This kind of study may help to prevent inappropriate post refunctioning
interventions on the character defining spaces, such as need of closure of the revaks.

Rüstem Paşa Medrese: Post refunctioning interventions in some closed spaces, such
as; museum and kitchen reorganizations, and material storages in the eivans for large
group events to be held in the courtyard radically changed the architectural perception
of the medrese. Refurbishing and refurnishing of the spaces made without considering
the historical character of the building also gave a damage to the character of the
medrese.
Installation channel surrounding the revaks was also created in Rüstem Paşa Medrese
similar with the other cases. However, post refunctioning electrical installations, such
as; for outdoor lighting and for security, loaded on top of the eave profiles and lead
covers have negative effects on the architectural character.
Although the huge spatial capacity and the unique layout of the medrese, dense post
refunctioning interventions and overdesign caused an unqualified interior space
perception. Post refunctioning installations also gave a damage to the architectural
character. The interventions and the installations were made without considering the
unique layout of the Rüstem Paşa Medrese. This demonstrates that the user preferred
to use the medrese both for its historical ambience and spatial capacity. Post
refunctioning interventions, installations including overdesign had a negative
effect on architectural features and spatial perception of the Rüstem Paşa
Medrese.
Appendice C.5. Table 4.5. demonstrates that lack of alternative reuse analisis and lack
of need program resulted in mass of improper post refunctioning interventions. And
finally they effeced negatively the success of the reuse.

Rabi Medrese: Careful interior design, limited use of the spaces which was made
considering the spatial capacity of the medrese and minimum intervention to keep the

317
character defining features including the architectural elements were the most essential
factors for sustainable conservation that was observed in Rabi Medrese. However, the
classroom which was used for broad participated events was loaded with a
broadcasting system and air-conditioning units resulting in visual pollution inside and
outside (Figures 4.8. and 4.9.).

Figure 4.8. Broadcasting and air-conditioning installations in the classroom of Rabi

Medrese in 2015

Figure 4.9. Air-conditioning installation on the classroom façade of Rabi Medrese in

2015

318
The outer installation channel surrounding the outer walls of the Rabi Medrese was an
extraordinary solution due to the extraordinary layout of the medrese. The lines go
through outer façade underground level and enter inside the rooms through one small
drilled hole wherever needed. Renewal of the plasters and pavements also helped to
these installations, as they were already renewed in the previous restorations and
repairs. Exceptionally in revak facades of Rabi Medrese, jointing of the fine cut stone
walls was used for embedding the electric lines.

The last refunctioning of Rabi Medrese can be evaluated as a good protection

approach in terms of architectural and spatial character; however, it has a slight
improper post refunctioning mechanical and electrical interventions.

Appendice C.6. Table 4.6. demonstrates that overall success of the reuse decisions
starting with the documentation and selection of functions to the design and technical
implementation of the alterations and systems, as well as their effects on sustainability.

Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese: The user planned to use the medrese for advanced academic
researches by individual researchers in rooms, for broad participated presentations and
activities in the courtyard with high consciousness and respect to the significance of
the medrese in 2015. The medrese was refunctioned with the minimum intervention
principal avoiding roofing the courtyard in accordance with the previous council
decisions. The preferred heating system vrf in the closed spaces also shows the same
minimum intervention principal as well as support the sustainability as being an
environmentally friend solution (Appendice C.7. Table 4.7). The conservative and
sensitive approach of the user to protect the original architectural character of
the medrese resulted in making a well- designed interior design project, careful
structural implementations on the walls and surfaces, respectful technical
installations and landscaping arrangements.

The user also though to use the medrese for advanced academic researches by
individual researchers in rooms, broad participated presentations and activities in the
courtyard with high consciousness and respect to the significance of the medrese.
However, there was no management plan preparation to control the effects of these
programs or whishes on the architectural character of the medrese. The decision of
the owner institution and the respectful manner of the user were as important as

319
the council decisions to keep the architectural character of the medrese, as there
was no legislative obligation to prepare an interior design project or a
management plan.

The situation in 2023: Since 2016, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese has been using for the
social, educational and cultural activities of the user NGO including trainings of
traditional handicrafts three days a week, for seminars, for exhibitions and for broad
participated events held in the courtyard as the main function (Figure 4.10.-4.13.). The
medrese was also using as the headquarter of the user foundation and for its charity
activities of scholarship. According to inscription pannel nailed on the entrance façade,
the name of the building is still Kılıç Ali Paşa Strategic Researches Center (Çayeli
Foundation, 24.08.2023).

Figure 4.10. Courtyard of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2023 (Çayeli Foundation)

Figure 4.11. Use of revaks for an opening ceremony of an exhibition in Kılıç Ali
Paşa Medrese in 2017 (Çayeli Foundation)

320
 Figure 4.12. Use of revaks for an exhibition in Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2017
(Çayeli Foundation)

Figure 4.13. Use of revaks and courtyard for a broad participated social event in
Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese in 2018 (Çayeli Foundation)

The continuity of respectful manner to the significance of the medrese during the
allocation period also helps for a sustainable protection in Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese.

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese: Museum program for hilyes and prayer beans, as if it was a
gallery or a branch museum, and both limited and respectful installations help to

321
exhibit the medrese’s itself. However, as the Hilyes made from organic and/or
sensitive materials –made with hand made papers, hand made inks and gold-, they
were not proper art crafts to be exhibited in revaks and rooms without setting up
essential climatic conditions. The revaks of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese were not suitable
space for organic material exhibition under unclimatized conditions due to their
original and protected semi open space character.

The rooms support the function of exhibition of prayer beans, as the materials were
very small and they need to be visited from close distance. In addition, the
reorganization of open niches in the rooms of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese seems an example
of effectively used architectural elements supporting the small size organic artcraft
exhibition in terms of their sizes, features, positions and numbers within the cases
(Figure 4.14.). The use of classroom for an administrative purpose caused the
ignorance of its potential to exhibit itself with its rich wall decoration, as well as the
example of a sensitive and careful restoration (Figure 4.15.).

Figure 4.14. Use of architectural elements in the rooms of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese in
2015

Similar to other cases, technical installations were placed into the channel surrounding
the revaks and were lined underfloor. The severely damaged situation before

322
restoration used as an advantage also to load the installations into the walls under
pointings.

The successful restoration of the Siyavuş Paşa Medrese for refunctioning, reveal
the artistic aspects of the medrese. Although the reuse decision changed just after
the restoration, the new and the latest function as museum was held with a careful
process. Appendice C.8. Table 4.8. shows the importance of appropriateness of need
program analisis on reuse decisions space by space, as it effects the whole success of
the process. The table also demonstrates the importance of a careful reuse process for
a successful and sustainable protection.

Figure 4.15. Use of the classroom of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese as administration office
in 2015

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese: The use of medrese as a headquarter together with socio-
cultural, educational, accommodational and touristic facilities resulted in the diversity
of space uses. This caused a functional trouble in the medrese and inappropriate
refurnisnig in the rooms, and also this gave a damage to the architectural character.
Interior arrangement made by the user NGO without any design project also effected
the architectural and spatial perception negatively. The additional building for the need
of wet service space was built on its estimated original location in the backyard.

323
The paved section of entrance courtyard was used for temporary exhibitions. However,
the revaks and the small and recreative inner courtyard were not reorganized and used
effectively to be exhibited themselves with their exceptional architectural elements.
This was probably the result of that the user gave a priority to extraverted activities,
due to the medrese was on a very important touristic axis.

Electrical, CCTV and fire supression installations were lined in the channel
surrounding the revaks. Besides, under plaster electrical lines were also used for
interior lighting, using with the advantage of pasr plaster renewals. However, the outer
façade lighting projectors which were fixed on the cut stone wall gave a damage to the
masonry (Figure 4.16.). Floor projectors would be the more suitable solution for façade
lighting.

Figure 4.16. The façade lighting in Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese in 2015

The refunctioning interventions made taking into account the unique layout had
a positive effect on the architectural character of the Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese

324
in general. However, inappropriate refurbishment made with unqualified
materials and details for the niches of the rooms and refurnishing with big
furnitures gave a damage to the original perception of the rooms. Exceptional
architectural elements in the courtyard were ignored instead of being used as the
part of the recreation. Although the unsuitable installation of ligting elements on
the outer façade, the system installation in the medrese was considered successful.

Appendice C.9. Table 4.9. shows the reason of inappropriateness of the post
refunctioning refurbishment and refurnishing in the rooms was the absence of need
program, functional analisis and a respectful interior design project. The table also
demonstrates that absence of an appropriate management and maintenance plan may
cause similar improper and uncontrolled post refunctioning interventions in the future.

Sultan Ahmet Medrese: Refunctioning made by ignoring the reuse necessities caused
a trouble of functional organization, inadequacy in space uses for main –cultural and
educational- activities, improper furnishing and finally gave a damage to the
architectural perception inside.

Non-conservative approach to the late period additions also causes to loss of historical
values of the building. Although the construction technic and design of the new
roofing did not give a damage to the building’s itself, renewal of courtyard roofing
made by ignoring the restoration report requirements that advised to protect the
existing one if there was no structural reason for renewal, gave a great damage
to the historical perception in the courtyard. Besides, outer façade has also been
damaged with big and nailed table showing the new name of the building, as well as
consoled entrance shelter to the façade above the entrance door.

In time, interior character of the medrese had gradually been affected negatively from
uncontrolled changes and improper activities, such as; cooking in the revaks for related
dormitories, improper and big furnitures in the rooms, arbitrary decoration in the
classroom and the courtyard.

Post refunctioning improper interventions also decreased the interior spatial

perception as well as gave a damage to the exterior architectural perception in
Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

325
As the courtyardwas used for great participated seminars organized by both the user
foundation and by the other NGO’s, the user capacity of the medrese was overloaded
during those events (Figure 4.17.).

Figure 4.17. The use of courtyard in Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2015

Architectural character defining elements were not been considered while taking
new use decisions; otherwise, to use a heritage building for a contemporary
function lost its meaning. In general, the new use interventions overrided the
historical character of interior in Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

Appendice C.10. Table 4.10 demonstrates that although the preferred construction
techniques of structural interventions and the application of system installations were
appropriate, the wrong reuse decisions taken before implementation resulted in wrong
design decisions. This causes loss of significance of the medrese. Besides,
inappropriate uses with big and unsuitable furnitures inside the medrese, particularly
in the rooms were other results of wrong reuse decisions. The table also shows that the
absence of an appropriate management plan may extends the reuse problems caused
by the inappropriate design decisions. This mutual effect shows that there is a concrete
relationship between the definition of needs program for refunctioning at the beginning

326
of the reuse and definition of management plan for a sustainability of the success of
protection.

Evaluating the Adaptive Reuse of the Selected Medreses in terms of Architectural

Features and Technical Aspects:

In conclusion, the adaptive reuse of museum function may have a negative effect on
interior architectural character of a medrese depending on the functional enforcement
of the preferred concept, resulting in the overdesign and inappropriate interventions,
even though the function became the identity of the building’s itself and of the context.
The case of Beyazıt Medrese was a good example for this negative effect. On the
contrary, the thematic museum use with limited and proper collection may be suitable
for a medrese building in terms of the effects of architectural and technical
interventions on the character of the building. The case of Siyavuş Paşa was a good
example for this positive effect revealing the artistic aspects of the medrese.

The main reason for giving a damage to the interior architectural character in most
cases were overdesign of closed spaces due to group uses and installations for
contemporary office needs of administrative uses. However, the installation channel
surrounding the revaks underfloor level was a good solution for medreses to lay down
the installations in, and it also helped to keep the architectural character of the
medreses. Nevertheless, some of post refunctioning installations, such as additions of
air-conditioning units, had also negative effect on architectural character and spatial
perception of medreses.

Radical interventions on character defining sections of the medreses, such as;

courtyard roofing, also gave a great damage to the interior architectural character and
the spatial perception of the building. Post refunctioning improper interventions may
also gave a damage to the exterior architectural perception, even if they were slight
and limited. These interior and exterior interventions were observed in the
refunctioning of Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

The use of backyard to build some vital additional service spaces helps to protect the
architectural character of the medrese by using. The service spaces built as an auxiliary
in Atik Ali Paşa, Haseki and Şehzade Medreses were the proper examples of this
solution.

327
The classrooms of medreses were the most distinguished and special spaces of the
medreses with their special and unique ornamental features and architectural elements.
(Figures 4.18.-4.25.), Exhibiting the original decorated architectural elements in
suitable conditions, considering their original uses and cultural values, was essential
to increase the cultural awareness of the historical character and originality of the
building. It was observed that, the exceptional architectural elements in the courtyard
were ignored as parts of the recreation.

Figure 4.18. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Şehzade

Medrese in 2013 (Private Archive of Kübra Construction Co.)

Figure 4.19. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Rüstem Paşa

Medrese in 2015

328
 Figure 4.20. Ornamented architectural elements in the transition zone of the
classroom of Rüstem Paşa Medrese in 2015

Figure 4.21. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Rabi Medrese in

2015

329
Figure 4.22. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese in 2015

Figure 4.23. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Siyavuş Paşa

Medrese in 2016

330
Figure 4.24. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Koca Sinan Paşa
Medrese in 2015

Figure 4.25. Ornamented architectural elements in the classroom of Sultan Ahmet

Medrese in 2016

331
4.1.3. The Use and Comfort

In this section, environmental comfort conditions of the spaces will be evaluated. The
effect of intrinsic comfort conditions to the new use decision and the effect of
appropriateness of new uses of the spaces to the interior comfort condition are two
factors affect each other. In the following subtitles, this mutual effect and its results on
the significance of the historical building will be evaluated.

Beyazıt Medrese: Closure of the revaks increased the comfort in terms of climate
control for objects as well as in terms of comfortable interior for visitors and users.
However, the circulation between the climatized zone and the classroom, where the
holy relics section, has not been designed with the continuity of the same comfort.

The existing and rehabilitated toilets underground in the courtyard has not a
comfortable service unit both for officers and visiters with its location. In cold seasons,
the users had to be gone outside from a comfortable heated zone to use toilets.

The decision of closure of the revaks caused an interruption on the continuity of

the museum circulation in Beyazıt Medrese. The location of toilets was another
negative factor for the quality of circulation, as well as the quality of comfortable
use.

Atik Ali Paşa Medrese: The dommed classroom was a proper space for the meetings
for its acoustic character. This use was also close to the original use. The rooms were
also dommed spaces supporting the acoustic activities.

Some of the ground floor rooms facing towards backyards were not good lighted
naturally. This had a negative physicological effect on users for long term uses. For
this reason, the good lighted and ventilated upper floor rooms with high ceiling were
assigned for administrative uses which needed the full-time work. However, outer
units of air-conditioning system located between the domes of the rooms causes visual
pollution for upper room users in Atik Ali Paşa Medrese.

332
The sizes and the acoustical character of the ground floor rooms offer a
comfortable space neither for small group activities, nor for administrative office
uses. Visual and psysichological effect of both the upper floor spaces’ itself and
the contribution of interventions to these effects was not considered well in
refunctioning of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese.

Haseki Medrese: The dommed rooms were support chanting the Koran activity
acoustically. Moreover, the sizes of the rooms also support furnising for a couple of
users without needing overloading installations. The classroom was a proper space for
the library use both in terms of size and being suitable for reverseble installations in
Haseki Medrese. For these reasons, the classroom and rooms support the
Advanced Koran Training Center function in terms of use and comfort with its
acoustic character, and do not need overloading installations with compulsory
equipment.

Şehzade Medrese: Şehzade Medrese with richness of its spaces in terms of different
characters; rooms, revaks, eivan, classroom and original toilets, as well as the
compatible sizes of those, supported the international socio-cultural activities to be
held in a historical and comfortable ambience. The general comfort conditions of the
closed spaces of Şehzade Medrese supported the needs of preferred new use.
However, comfort expectation of the user in circulation zone during the wet and
cold seasons lead the user to prepare a project proposal of closure of the revaks.

Rüstem Paşa Medrese: Overdesign in spaces reducing the quality of use was strongly
felt in the rooms, especially those used as the projection room and the restaurant
(Figure 4.26.). Using the eivans as a storage for the garden furniture, for kitchen
equipments and for other service tools caused an interior visual pollution in the
building (Figure 4.27.).

Heating and lighting of the spaces also did not offer a comfortable ambience in the
classroom and rooms. In spite of the existence of big air-conditioners inside, the
heating of the classroom offered inadequate comfortable space both for limited uses in
winter sessions and the style of use of the classroom. The user’s approach taking shoes

333
inside the classroom requires a different heating solution for the body comfort of the
users.

In addition, the choice of chandeliers for space lighting was the same for the spaces
with different characters and different sizes. This causes inadequate space lighting in
some of the rooms.

Figure 4.26. The use of a room for projection in cinematic order in Rüstem Paşa
Medrese in 2015

Figure 4.27. The use of an eivan as a storege for garden events in Rüstem Paşa
Medrese in 2015

Improper refurbishment and refurnishing with the architectural character of the

building, overdesign in the closed spaces, inappropriate use of the semi open
spaces and wrong decisions for interior lighting resulted in unqualified and
uncomfortable interior use in Rüstem Paşa Medrese.

Rabi Medrese: Altogether the scientific conservation approach and sensitive

installations, some of comfort needs for users and equipment needs for new function
have been overlooked. Limited functional and installational additions, such as; air
conditioning for classroom and director’s office, broadcasting and projection
equipments with cables in the classroom, have been made by the new user.

In general, comfort conditions of the spaces were considerably good in Rabi Medrese.
However, the post refunctioning interventions for space comfort which were made
without any design, affected the quality of the use of spaces negatively, even though

334
they were very slight. This demonstrates that the comfort expectations were not
studied well considering the historic architectural character of the spaces in
refunctioning phase.

Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese: As the ground floor level of the medrese was lower than the
outer level on all sides, and due to the high underground water level, there was a rising
damp problem in all the spaces. This, reduced the quality of interior atmosphere and
resulted in an unhealthy ambience in the rooms.

The rooms, except for those facing towards north side, were not good ventilated
naturally due to original window order. This had a negative physicological effect on
users for long term uses. In addition to this, due to the insufficient depth of the
backyard and the high buildings besides, the rooms located on the west wing were not
good ventilated. However, the careful use approach was felt in both rooms and other
sections of the medrese. Furthermore, the conservative approach of the user to be able
to eliminate the rising damp problem in environmental scale in the future would help
to increase the ambience quality in Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese.

The poor quality of interior atmosphere in some of the rooms due to both original
architectural design decisions and changing environmental conditions were the
main use and comfort problematics of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese. The style of
use of the medrese in a respectful manner depending on mostly group activities
limited with a certain period of time, fortunately, contributed to tolerate the
comfort conditions inside.

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese: The close-semi open-open space hierarchy of the medrese
with the recreative courtyard in the core, and the careful restoration exemplifying of
the surfaces offered visitors an extraordinary exhibition experience in a special
historical ambience in Siyavuş Paşa Medrese. The rooms also made the visitors feel
calm with the texture of surfaces, with lighting style and color and exposing the
architectural elements in a respectful manner. However, use of the classroom was not
a suitable preference for office uses, in terms of its strong acoustical character and
height. In addition to this, inadequacy in heating the big volume caused uncomfortable
working space for office workers. Siyavuş Paşa Medrese offered a successful

335
refunctioning example in terms of use and comfort conditions, especially for
visitors.

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese: The unique positioning of the classroom supports being
used for wide-participated seminars without disturbing the silent use of the inner
courtyard and rooms section. Decoration of the classroom referring to both original
style of the medrese classroom use and style of traditional sofa furnishing, made the
users feel warm and peaceful. Use of classroom by large group of people for a
scheduled activities also requires the space to be air-conditioned well. The confusion
revealed by establishing air-conditioning system and needed technical equipment for
presentations in the classroom reduced the quality of use and perception of the space
while effected negatively the users’ psychology.

Besides, the refurbishment and refurnishing in the rooms made without emphasizing
the architectural character of the building also resulted in a confusion of the users in
terms of quality of spatial perception.

On the other hand, the rooms used for accommodation al needs were not able to fullfill
the contemporary comfort expectations.

The courtyard made the users feel calm with its protected original ambience. The
location of the toilets at the backyard also helped to keep the quality of interior
ambience.

In general, refunctioning interventions and reuse decisions in the classroom and

the semi open and open spaces may be considered satisfactory in terms of use and
comfort conditions in Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese.

Sultan Ahmet Medrese: The heavy refurnishing of the classroom, revaks rooms and
the courtyard, as well as the decoration style preferred by the user causes a strong
visual confusion in interior of the medrese.

The rooms located on the north wing have only one window facing towards the revaks,
originally. These rooms were not good lighted and good ventilated naturally. This
resulted in those rooms to be assigned for subsidiary uses; like kitchen and storage.
Besides, this also caused the north wing being ignored for the preference of the

336
courtyard use (Figure 4.28.). The smell diffusing from the kitchen due to intensive use
and insufficient ventilation was felt from the moment you enter the building. This
adversely affects the quality of use, especially in the courtyard.

Architectural character defining elements in the courtyard were also ignored while
using the space in seminar order. For instance, restored ablution fountain with a roof
in the middle of the courtyard was a visual obstacle for some audiences. Thus, there
was a contradiction between the seminar order oriented to a scene with linear seats and
the original central character of the courtyard. This order preference poses both
functional and visual barrier to the new use, while damaging the original interior
character (Figure 4.29.).

The reuse interventions in the closed courtyard, overdesign in the spaces with
heavy refurnishing and using style of both the spaces and the surfaces preferred
by the user caused a strong visual confusion and visual pollution in interior of the
medrese, as well as a damage to the historical surfaces of the structure.

Figure 4.28. Post refunctioning extention of kitchen use in the north revaks in Sultan
Ahmet Medrese in 2018

337
Figure 4.29. The ablution fountain and some other movable architectural elements in
the courtyard of Sultan Ahmet Medrese in 2016

Evaluating the Adaptive Reuse of the Selected Medreses in terms of the Use and
Comfort:

Closure of the revaks caused an interruption on the continuity of the museum

circulation in Beyazıt Medrese due to detached character of the classroom in the
layout. The location of toilets was another negative factor for the quality of circulation,
as well as the quality of comfortable use. Revision of closure of the courtyard in Sultan
Ahmet Medrese was also caused an uncomfortable space use due to air-conditioning
inadequacy during the broad participated seminars.

Inadequate comfort conditions of the rooms in terms of natural lighting and ventilating
and the contribution of interventions made to eliminate these effects, as well as reuse
decisions of those rooms should be evaluated in a balance during the refunctioning.
The uncomfortable conditions of the rooms and improper solutions to eliminate these
were observed in Atik Ali Paşa, Kılıç Ali Paşa, Koca Sinan Paşa and Sultan Ahmet
medreses strongly. The poor quality of interior atmosphere in rooms due to both
original architectural design decisions and changing environmental conditions were
the main use and comfort problematics of the Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese. The
refunctioning and style of use in a respectful manner, fortunately, contributed to
increase the comfort conditions inside.

338
Acoustic character of the rooms was ignored in most cases, except for Haseki Medrese.
The classroom and rooms of Haseki Medrese supported the Advanced Koran Training
Center function in terms of use and comfort with their acoustic character, and not
needed to overload the spaces with installations for compulsory equipment.

Inappropriate use of the semi open spaces and wrong decisions for interior lighting
resulted in unqualified and uncomfortable interior use in Rüstem Paşa Medrese. In
addition, overdesign in the spaces with refurnishing and using style of both the spaces
and the surfaces preferred by the user caused a strong visual confusion and visual
pollution in interior of the Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

The post refunctioning interventions to rise the space comfort which were made
without any design, affected the quality of the space use negatively, even though they
were very slight, as it can be seen in Rabi Medrese.

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese exemplified a successful refunctioning in terms of use and

comfort conditions, especially for visitors. Refunctioning interventions and reuse
decisions in the classroom and the semi open and open spaces may also be considered
satisfactory in terms of use and comfort conditions in Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese.

339
4.2. Overall Evaluation

In this section, an overall evaluation will be made on selected medreses from the
contextual, functional, structural, technical and environmental aspects. Detailed
analisis documented in the tables case by case in Appendix C, from C.1 to C.10 were
used for evaluations made in the following sections.

4.2.1. The Contextual Aspects

According to results of this study, the context seems the major factor on refunctioning,
either environmental or intrinsic. In both conditions, the context had a positive effect
on refunctioning. However, in very rare cases the context was ignored (Table 4.11).

Long term uses were mostly the result of the strong effect of the protected context. For
example; Beyazıt Medrese had kept the museum function for the last 83 years by 2015.
Furthermore, the spectacular character of the environmental context as an open-air
museum probably had a strong effect on keeping the function Beyazıt Medrese as
“Foundation Calligraphic Art Crafts Museum”. The name of the museum integrated
with the building due to long term use and it contributed a memorial value to the
medrese. This mutual effect between intrinsic and environmental context, enforced the
refunctioning process just to rehabilitate the building to continue the same function.
The context enforcement resulted in the overdesign and improper interventions
due to the spatial restrictions of the Beyazıt Medrese, as well as increasing needs
of contemporary museum approach.

Another example for long term use - context effect on refunctioning is Atik Ali Paşa
Medrese. Long term use resulted in the building to be adopted by the user and to
became the brand of the user NGO. In 2015, the medrese had been using by the same
user, “Birlik Foundation”, for more than 35 years with the same but enhanced
activities. Enhanced activities and enlarged numbers of members as the potential users
of the building resulted in a contradiction between the users and conservators during
the restoration - refunctioning process. This emotional connection also resulted in
overdesign of the medrese with furnishing that cause negative effect on character
defining features and reduced the comfortable use. The conserved environmental
context as a cultural axis for centuries and ease of access to the building support to

340
keep the function for a long time. In the case of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese, memorial
value of the existing function as a result of strong effect of the context is major
factor to keep the function.

In some cases, environmental context has been taken into consideration while
deciding the new use even for certain spaces. For example, the classroom of Koca
Sinan Paşa Medrese was used for periodic social-educational organizations also for
tourists as it is on a touristic center. The medreses located gradually far from public
transport axis or central areas like Siyavuş Paşa, Rabi and Rüstem Paşa medreses were
assigned for different functions with different programs; as museum, research center
and mix of both. On the contrary the accessing difficulty and poor environmental
context, success of refunctioning of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese had a transformative effect
on close environment increasing the quality of interventions made around and it caused
awareness of the existence and importance of buildings itself. This demonstrates that,
a successful restoration and refunctioning may have a transformative effect on
the environmental context.

Group value and thus great functional potential with diversity of spaces of the complex
became an opportunity for some cases creating a kind of habitat for the medrese as it
can be seen in the case of Haseki Medrese.

Due to great spatial potential of the medrese, strong intrinsic context originated from
its unicity may be ignored in some refunctioning cases as it may seen in the case of
Rüstem Paşa Medrese. In some cases, the outer context may be ignored due to spatial
potential of the medrese, and ease of access may be accompanied to this as in the case
of Sultan Ahmet Medrese. The advantages of great spatial potential and ease of
access may cause to ignorance of the context that resulting in deterioration of
architectural character of big scaled medreses.

4.2.2. The Functional Aspects in Relation with Architectural and Spatial

Properties

Selected medreses were used for mainly 3 functions. The main functions were;
1. Social-cultural
2. Museum

341
 3. Research center
In some cases, secondary functions were inserted or accompanied to the main
functions. Secondary functions were 5 different activities as follow:
1. Academic uses
2. Administrative uses
3. Gastronomic uses
4. Accommodational use
5. Museum use
In some cases, more than one secondary function may be seen with together. Table
4.12. demonstrates the diversity of uses of the spaces.
Compatibility of the main functions with the architectural character of the selected will
be evaluated under this topic as separate subtitles and then the secondary functions
will be evaluated together under another subtitle.

Social-Cultural Activities:

Social-cultural activities held in case medreses were as follow;

1. Club or group activities for professionals and university students,

2. Charity facilities for university students including scholarship,
3. Seminars on social and cultural issues,
4. Trainings on traditional Turkish handicrafts including illumination,
calligraphy, marbling and miniature,
5. Book translation.

Club activities for professionals were held in Atik Ali Paşa, and the group activities
for university students were held in Şehzade Medrese. These were the facilities of
small groups needed small spaces. In general rooms of the medreses were assigned for
these uses. Club meetings and group activities including 8-10 people caused
overdesign in rooms due to necessary refurbishment and refurnishing. This is the
main reason of giving a damage to the interior architectural character of the medreses.

Charity activities, as the main field of services of the NGO users, mostly included in
scholarship services. This facility was held in an office order. The rooms assigned for
administrative offices were used for this service. Thus, the need of a space for
scholarship service can be considered within the administrative uses as secondary

342
facilities. However, the facility of scholarship was added to the other social and
cultural activities held in the same building mostly.

Seminars were held in the classroom of the medreses, as they were large-scale
meetings. The seminars sometimes were held for approximately 90-100 people. The
seminar order for audiences in the classroom may be in cinematic order or traditional
sofa order depending on the decoration approach of the user. Seminar events were the
closest use to the original. For this reason, the use of classroom as seminar hall was
a compatible use with the architectural character of the classroom of a medrese.
Exceptionally, the courtyard was used for seminars in Sultan Ahmet Medrese for more
than 200 people. However, seminar order was not suitable with the original central
design of the courtyard in Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

Traditional Turkish handicrafts trainings were very popular uses held in the selected
medreses. One to three rooms were assigned for these activities in Atik Ali Paşa,
Rüstem Paşa, Koca Sinan Paşa and Sultan Ahmet medreses. As within this handicrafts
calligraphy and marbling needed different style of training disciplines and equipment,
while illumination and miniature needed similar refurnishing, more than one rooms
assigned for these cultural activities in medreses. The rooms used for illumination
and miniature trainings were supposed to overdesign with furnishing. As, there
was a high tendency to these branches. Both disciplines were held for 7-8 students in
one session and each student needs one table and a chair. For this reason, these
activities were not suitable with the sizes of medrese rooms. Marbling needs a source
of water nearby; however, this need was not fulfilled in a medrese room easily. In
Sultan Ahmet Medrese, the room assigned for marbling training was the room next to
the service space. In general, compatibility of the room to be assigned for marbling
training depends on the position of the spaces. The calligraphy needs a one-by-one
training, thus, in one session only one trainee attended to the event. For this reason,
calligraphy training was a suitable use for the rooms in terms of dimensions of
the space and the necessary equipment or refurnishing.

Book translation made in two medreses; Koca Sinan Paşa and Rüstem Paşa. This
activity needed to be worked alone in an office order. The niches in the rooms were
also support this activity as they were used as bookcases. This may be considered a
very close use to the original. The book translation is a suitable use for the
architectural features of medrese rooms.

343
Museum Use: Interior architectural character of the Beyazıt Medrese has been
affected negatively from refunctioning interventions and installations as a result of
functional enforcement of museum use, even though the function became the identity
of the building’s itself and of the context. The major problem in Beyazıt Medrese was
the interruption of continuity of the air-conditioned zone and the interventions and
installations for getting this compulsory need of the museum. Closure of the revaks
was compulsory for this need. However, it was not a suitable intervention for the
layout. On the other hand, the exhibition style of the art crafts in the rooms was ignored
the architectural character defining features and elements of the space.

The successful restoration of the Siyavuş Paşa Medrese for refunctioning, revealed the
artistic aspects of the medrese. Although the initial reuse decision changed just after
the restoration had been completed, the new and the latest function as museum was
held with a careful process. The refunctioning of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese is one of the
most successful implementations within the cases. This demonstrates that,
compatibility of the character defining features of the medrese space by space with the
preferred museum use was the critical point that had to be considered for refunctioning.

Museum function having a rich collection including organic materials is not

fulfilled by a spatial capacity of a traditional medrese. However, for suitable and
small collections the museum function may be evaluated as compatible with the
medreses. The second use can be assessed a branch museum or an art gallery
rather than a museum.

Research Center Use: Research center use of a medrese means the medrese rooms
that were assigned to individual academicians to be able to make their certain academic
works in. This use was the main function of Rabi Medrese. Each of the room was
assigned to one user for a certain period within this use. The room order was similar
to an office order. This use was one of the closest use to the original, and the furnishing
was specially designed for the function considering the architectural character of the
rooms. The voice insulation due to the thickness of the walls was an advantage for
research center use. Silence of the rooms can be evaluated as one of the reasons to
choose medreses for individual working activities.

344
 The classroom was used for special meetings of the user institution. The
headquarter was out of the medrese. The conservative and sensitive approach of the
user to protect the original architectural character of the medrese resulted in making a
well- designed interior design project and implementation, as well as landscaping
arrangements. The last refunctioning of Rabi Medrese is the most protective approach
in terms of architectural and spatial character; however, it has a slight improper post
refunctioning mechanical and electrical interventions in the classroom.

Being a part of a connected group of building was also an advantage for a medrese to
keep the architectural character in addition to being reserved for the closest function
to the original with limited intervention. Haseki Medrese had this opportunity.
However, its strong intrinsic context, which had been ignored during refunctioning
process, had a big potential to change the proposed and approved function.

Secondary Functions:

Secondary functions adjacent to the main functions in the cases were academic uses,
administrative uses, gastronomic uses, the accommodational use and the museum use.

Academic uses were observed in the form of individual academic researches, book
writing works and face to face lectures for one or limited group of students. In general,
the rooms and sometimes the classroom were used for these activities. Almost all the
users supported individual academic uses, so that, they though these activities a
kind of accessibility and a social benefit.

Administrative uses were the most preferred secondary use in medreses. Except for
Rabi Medrese, all the other refunctioned medreses included in administrative uses.
Administrative uses were the major reason of improper post refunctioning
interventions and overdesign in medreses, as it caused the user to adopt the space
for a permanent address. Administrative uses also needed to use more than one closed
space including mostly rooms or may be the classroom. This resulted in reducing the
spatial capacity of the medrese for public uses.

Gastronomic uses were observed in two of the case; Rüstem Paşa and Sultan Ahmet
medreses. This use needed a big storage, a preparation space and too much
interventions including mechanical and electrical installations. For this reason,
gastronomic use resulted in harmful interventions, misuses and overdesign of the

345
spaces and it reduced the interior comfort conditions of the medrese. Gastronomic
use gave a considerable damage to the architectural character; thus, it is not a
proper use for medreses.

Accommodational use was observed in Rüstem Paşa and Koca Sinan Paşa Medreses.
Two or three rooms were reserved mostly for foreign university students need for an
urgent accommodate temporarily in both medreses. Accommodational use was one
of the closest uses to the original use of the medrese rooms and it did not give a
damage to the character of the rooms as it did not need an extra intervention.
However, such a private use was far from to fullfill the contemporary comfort
expectations and causes to medrese being inaccessible, even it was partially.

Museum use as a secondary function was only in Rüstem Paşa Medrese. Three spaces
were assigned for this use located in the north corner of the medrese; two of the
medrese rooms and the triangular space between those rooms. The intrinsic potential
of the triangular space in terms of dimensions, architectural character and lighting
supported to the museum function, as well as the potential of the rooms were the same.
Museum function was thematic and supported by the architectural potentials of the
selected spaces in terms of scale and sizes of the pieces of the collection. The respectful
interventions were limited with the use of the niches in the rooms as showcases and
other exhibitions were in movable showcases and on panels. A thematic museum use
with a proper collection in terms of size and material can be evaluated as
compatible with the overall architectural character of a medrese.

4.2.3. The Structural and Technical Aspects

The overall analisis in Table 4.13. demonstrates that, reuse of selected medreses were
successful in terms of construction techniques of new additions and alterations and
inplementation methods of installed systems. Case by case analisis explained in the
section 4.1. and analysed in the tables in Appendice C were also demonstrates this.

The success of construction techniques were mostly resulted of conservation council

decisions. The main principals of architectural conservation, such as; minimum
intervention on the original structure and reversibility were considered strictly. The
construction technics of closure of revaks in Beyazıt Medrese and the roofing of

346
courtyard in Sultan Ahmet Medrese shows this conservative manner. The same
respectful manner can be observed in window and door woodwork renewals as well
as window framework additions to the embrasures. The glasswork window addition to
the embrassure in service space of Rabi Medrese was a good example of this
sensitiveness. This also demonstrated that, conservative manner and design success of
the designer and a good manifacturing were as important as the conservative manner
of approval board for an appropriate solution.

Parallel to construction of structural additions and alterations, a special approach

developed considering the architectural character of the medreses to keep the system
installation, creation of a channel surrounding the revaks, may also considered as the
main reason of success of implementations of system installation. Change of finishings
in past restorations also allowed to keep some of installations underplaster or
underfloor in almost all the cases. The case of Rabi Medrese also showed a good
example of keeping the electric wires in renewed jointings of cut stone masonry walls
in revaks.

Documentation of the building depending on historical research and building survey

were done in all the cases. However the significance assessment is handled globally in
building scale. This demonstrates that the distinguishing values of the medreses were
not understood well, so as they could be able to conserved in a proper way. Besides,
the documentation was made as a compulsory for conservation council approval in
accordance with the conservation supreme council decision no 660. Unfortunately, just
a detailed and successful documentation is not enough to start for an appropriate reuse
process. Definition of need program and analisis of alternative uses comparing with
the capacity and significance of the medrese were revealed two important components
of starting point of reuse process.

The lack or insufficiency of these reuse components resulted in vaste of interventions

and caused a trouble of architectural design decisions. These results can be observed
obviously in the cases of Beyazıt Medrese in the form of incompleded restoration work
and in the cases of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese in the form of debate between the user and
designer in implementation phase. Another result of lack of or insufficiency of these
two reuse components was enforcement of the rooms with the wrong refurnishing in
the post refunctioning phase. The choice of improper furniture in rooms that were

347
using as projection room, library, restaurant and meeting room in the case of Rüstem
Paşa Medrese demonstrates this result obviously. It can be derivated that, although the
documentation of bulding was made in accordance with the legislative framework,
insufficiency in initial reuse decisions resulted in inappropriate design decisions in
reuse processes.

Besides, energy efficiency and management as the main components of a sustainable

conservation were mostly ignored in the cases. The topic energy efficiency was
considered with the choice of vrf system for airconditioning. The energy efficiency
emphasis in the restoration report of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese demonstrates the
awarneses of this topic. However, the minimum impact advantage of the system were
the main reason for choosing the vrf system rather than the energy efficiency
advantage as mostly seen in the cases.

Management plan, with its complementary components, maintenance plan and

periodic inspection, were taken into account none of the cases. This probably because,
all the cases were under the responsibility of the same institution, General Directorate
of Foundations, and the institution was managing the process in accordance with its
internal regulations. According to 65th article of Foundation Regulation, the case
medreses as allocated buildings were inspected by the responsibles of the institution
per 4 month. However, the qualification of the responsibles and the absence of
inspection criteria were not predefined by the responsible institution. This definitive
absence resulted in improper post refunctioning interventions and loss of significance
gradually within the time. The kitchen uses in Rüstem Paşa and Sultan Ahmet
medreses were the most radical results of this management problematic. In addition to
this, improper refurbishment and furnituring in the rooms made by the users without
considering the size of the space were also another result of the same problematic. The
general use of rooms in Rüstem Paşa and Sultan Ahmet medreses also exemplified this
management inappropriateness. These results showed that, the choice of furniture and
carpentry works of refurbishment of the rooms and classrooms of the medreses should
be checked and allowed before implementation considering the space by space
significance of the components of a medrese.

The another important factor for a sustainability in conservation, public access to the
heritage building was allowed only in three cases that include a museum function and

348
exceptionally in Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese. The other cases were only open to the
beneficiants and responsibles. The ordinary persons can only accepted with a special
permission of the user depending on the approval of the reason of the visit, The visitor
control is essential for the medreses to avoid mass of tourism, as they were
characteristic and sensitive buildings. However, the spaces of the medreses exhibiting
the character defining features may open to public visits within a proper and visit
program. This will help to a sustainable protection rising the awarnesses on the
significance of the medreses and inspiring the adoption of these important heritage
buildings on visitors.

4.2.4. The Environmental Aspects Including Comfort and Use

Diversity of lighting and climatic conditions of rooms in the same building effect the
new use decision (Feilden 1982). Contemporary needs of installations like heating-
cooling, lightening, fire supression, security, communication, air-conditioning and
contemporary furnishing expectations considerably effect the architectural character
of the medreses, especially of the rooms.

In the cases medreses, two types of users were observed; governmental bodies and
non-governmental organizations, that is NGO’s. The users of Beyazıt, Haseki and Rabi
medreses were the governmental bodies and the other users were foundations as
NGO’s. The user NGO’s were the legal entities working for educational, cultural and
social public interests. In 2016 the users of the studied medreses were as follow;

Governmental Users;

Beyazıt Medrese by General Directorate of Foundations, DGF,

Haseki Medrese by the Presidency of Religious Affairs, DİB,

Rabi Medrese by Turkish Academy of Sciences, TÜBA,

Non-Governmental Users;

Atik Ali Paşa Medrese by Birlik Foundation,

Şehzade Medrese by Suffa Foundation,

Rüstem Paşa Medrese by Istanbul Science and Culture Foundation

349
 Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese by Çayeli Foundation

Siyavuş Paşa Medrese by Istanbul Art and Civilisation Foundation

Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese by Hizmet Foundation

Sultan Ahmet Medrese by Sultan Ahmet Foundation

The main factor for governmental bodies to use the medreses was strong effect of their
historical environmental and intrinsic contexts. In 2015, Beyazıt Medrese had been
using for 32 years, Haseki Medrese for 45 years and Rabi Medrese for 14 years by
different governmental bodies. On the other hand, the special historical interior
character of the medreses depending on courtyard-revaks-rooms hierarchy was a
strong reason for NGO’s to choose medreses to continue their educational-social-
cultural activities.

The governmental bodies had numbers of buildings to fulfill their different activities
and they had headquarters in different places for administrative uses. Thus, the
governmental bodies had a flexibility of use the medreses for certain purposes in
limited durations.

The case of Rabi Medrese was a good example demonstrating this flexibility of use.

Haseki Medrese was refunctioned with a proper use that suits the character of the
medrese by using the advantage of being a part of a group of building. Thus,
administrative uses could be shifted to another related building of the group.

Although DGF had administrative buildings in different places, the use of museum in
Beyazıt Medrese could not fulfill the comfort expectations of the user. Using the
medrese for “museum administration”, in addition to other restrictions being resulted
in the enforcement of the context, the type of determined collection to be exhibited
and other legislative conservative restrictions, was an important factor for this
unwanted result.

The medreses used by NGO’s were the headquarters of them at the same time. This
was the main reason rising the comfort expectations of the users. The spaces of the
medreses having a good natural illumination and ventilation were used for the
administrative purposes in general by the user NGO’s. In Siyavuş Paşa medrese the
classroom was used as administration office while in Sultan Ahmet, Rabi, Rüstem Paşa

350
and Atik Ali Paşa medreses the rooms were used for this purpose. The rooms used for
administrative purposes were mostly the corner rooms having windows on two outer
facades. In the case of Beyazıt Medrese, the preference of room as administration
office was also the same. This demonstrates that spatial comfort conditions of most
of medrese rooms could not fulfill the contemporary comfort expectations of
office use covering long working hours.

The use of the spaces of a medrese for long hours needed also more installations to
fulfill the spatial and technological comfort expectations of use.

Considering the thickness of masonry body walls of approximately 1m, it can be said
that medreses have good insulation in terms of heat. Fireplaces as original heaters,
were not used in contemporary life in 21th century. In order to heat the rooms and the
classroom, mostly vrf system, radiators and underfloor heating were preferred.
Renewal of pavement and plasters used an advantage to keep the installations,
especially underfloor heating. Underfloor heating system was used in the main spaces
of Siyavuş Paşa and Koca Sinan Paşa medreses and in the revak section of Beyazıt.
However, because of user’s post refunctioning decision, radiator was used for heating
the rooms. In addition to this, for extra or alternative heating in some of the spaces
electric heaters were added by users.

Classrooms that were used by large groups of people were mostly air conditioned by
users after restoration in Rabi, Rüstem Paşa and Koca Sinan Paşa medreses. This
undesigned intervention negatively effects interior architectural character and caused
a visual pollution both inside and outside of the medreses.

Additional outer lighting and the change of lighting system inside as post refunctioning
interventions were observed in two cases; Rüstem Paşa and Sultan Ahmet medreses.
Users tends to change chandeliers with bigger ones without making a revision on
electric lines.

As a result of comfort expectations of users, overloading the electrical system with

bigger chandeliers and using extra electrical heaters in different spaces effect the
historical architectural perception of the medreses negatively. These improper
post refunctioning changes also thread the existing capacity of electrical system
and may cause a fire thread.

351
It was understood with this study that, there was a relationship between comfort
expectations and functional expectations of the user. Functional expectations varied
depending on the context. On the other hand, comfort expectations also depended on
the users’ approach on the balance between style of use and conservation
understanding. The most important factor distinguishing the style of use approach of
the governmental users from non-governmental ones that the flexibility of space, that
means having another headquarter for administrative purposes. Administrative uses
have been the main reason why the medreses have been overdesigned, so that they
cannot meet the contemporary comfort expectations of the users for office uses.
Parallel to this, functional expectations of refunctioning that made without considering
the balance between spatial and architectural capacity of the medreses with the need
program was another important reason of not fulfilled of comfort expectations of the
users.

4.2.5. Managing the Reuse Process

As it was explained in the Chapter I, General Directorate of Foundations is the

responsible and authorized institution to manage the medreses and assign a function to
them. All the selected medreses for this study were under the responsibility of
Directorate General of Foundations. It was observed in overall review in the Chapter
II that, most of the medreses even those that demolished ones were under the
responsibility/ownership of the same institution. For this reason, the responsible
institution’s regulations have a vital importance to direct and to manage an appropriate
adaptive reuse process by probable revisions to be made in the future.

According to the Foundation Regulation, General Directorate of Foundations is the

authorized institution to assign a function to the medreses together with other charity
82
properties of foundations in accordance with the initial use written in their
foundation charters. DGF may allocate these charity properties to governmental
institutions, social associations or new foundations to be used for those initial purposes
for a certain period. If the initial use is not possible, medreses may be rented
temporarily until they will be able to be evaluated and used with a function that close

82
According to Foundations Regulation, Article 59, these properties are;” Primary school, hospital,
bimarhane, imaret, library and others”.

352
to the initial purpose. 83 In foundation charters, medreses were donated for educational
purposes on religious, social and scientific fields.84

In practice, following the signing of an allocation protocol with the user, the new
function for a medrese building is decided by the user in accordance with the frame
reuse decision explained above. Parallel to this, the frame decisions of conservation
plans were also effective factors on reuse of medreses. As it was explained in the
Chapter I and demonstrated in the Chapter II, medreses has been defined as cultural or
social-cultural edifices in the Istanbul Historic Peninsula Conservation Site
Management Plan.

Although there were legislative enforcements and other parameters affecting the new
use of the medreses globally, there is not a “methodologic compatible use study” for
assigning a new function to the cases except for Haseki and Rabi medreses. Haseki
Medrese is refunctioned by owner/user institution DGF and the designer in a
collaboration considering the architectural and environmental features, functional
capacity and potentials taking care of architectural, historical and group values of the
building. Rabi Medrese was also refunctioned by a scientific committee, created by
the user institution, TÜBA, considering the historical and architectural values,
potential and spatial characteristics of the medrese. However, due to the strong effect
of the context, the refunctioning process was not being adapted in Haseki Medrese in
2015.

Detailed functional documentation works for the case medreses were also made within
the new use –or interior design- projects for Rabi, Beyazıt and Haseki medreses during
the refunctioning process. Functional program, numbers and locations of users, the
objects to be exhibited in galleries and all the installations, escape plan, refurnishing
and landscape including parking and pedestrianization had been designed and
approved before completion of restoration process of Beyazıt and Haseki medreses in
accordance with the decision of Conservation Council. However, similar analysis was
held in refunctioning process of Rabi Medrese due to the conservative approach of the

83
Foundations Regulation, Article 59.
84
Some of the medreses were also assigned for researches as a library together with the educational
purposes and the donated books to being studied in the medrese were described in detail, such as Rüstem
Paşa Medrese. On the other hand, some of the medreses, such as Beyazıt Medrese, were assigned for a
rather specialized and advanced function in its foundation charter as darulhadis medreses.

353
scientific committee. In 2015, the other studied medreses had no interior design
projects yet.85

Together with the scientific and conservative approach of some certain users, reuse
decisions of medreses were concretely formed by sensational and cultural connections
of the users with past.

Having reviewed the reuse process concluded in Chapter 1.3., it can be evaluated that
Beyazıt, Rabi, Şehzade, Atik Ali Paşa, Siyavuş Paşa and Kılıç Ali Paşa medreses had
a careful reuse analysis process and made by emphasizing the protection of the
architectural character. Refunctioning process was paused in Beyazıt Medrese,
because of institutional reasons. Refunctioning process in Atik Ali Paşa Medrese was
extended due to different approaches of the designer and the user on reuse
interventions. There was no definitive refunctioning process adopted to Sultan Ahmet
Medrese in 2015. However, if we follow the official correspondence, it is understood
that reuse decisions and refunctioning interventions were made emphasizing to keep
the existing spatial potential of the building without considering the context or
character defining features of the medrese.
In conclusion, it is understood that there is a gap in the of the legislative regulations
on handling the reuse process in Türkiye. This caused the reuse process for medreses
to be formed by personal approaches and conservative manners of the users. The result
of this study demonstrates the importance of handling a proper reuse process, so that
heritage buildings can be protected avoiding the improper interventions as being
resulted in incompatible reuse decisions. Handling a proper reuse process will also
help for avoiding to lose of time and finance for investors and lose of efforts for
conservation professionals. The definitional framework gap on reuse process may
be eliminated by preparing a guideline for reuse of cultural heritage of Türkiye
through a collaboration of related parts.

As it was analyzed in the Chapter I, considering the legal conservation frame of

Türkiye and in the light of general criteria of international documents of ICOMOS as

85
In the conversations with users and site controls of medreses who were responsible in restoration
process, it was informed that after completing the restoration, users will prepare interior design projects
for Şehzade and Kılıç Ali Paşa medreses. The responsible of user foundation of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese
is declared that they will prepare a sensitive interior design project both considering the historic
importance of the donor, (who was a navy commander and an important scholar worked on navy
technologies and gave lectures in his own medrese as a muderris,) and referring to the interior design
approach of Rabi Medrese as a good example.

354
well as other processes developed by different countries and specialists that can be
seen in the Appendix A (Appendices A.1-A.7), a reuse process proposal for cultural
heritage was created in the form of a flowchart (Table 4.4). The table summarizes and
figures out the inputs of the process titled as follows;

A. Understanding the building, documenting the;

a. History of environment
b. History of the building and its use
c. Architectural drawings (site plans, plans, sections, elevations,
details, 3D modelling and others)
d. Architectural features
i. Sizes
ii. Scales
iii. Materials
iv. Techniques
e. Spatial features
i. Illumination
ii. Ventilation
iii. Air-condition
f. Structural conditions
g. Environmental features
B. Analysis
a. Structural analysis
b. Stratigraphic analysis
c. Material analysis
d. Deteriorations analysis
C. Significance assessment (definitions of values to be protected)
a. Originality
b. Integrity
c. Historic value
d. Documentation value
e. Asthetic and artistic value
f. Technique and technologic value
g. Uniqueness value
h. Group value
i. Functional value
j. Folcloric value
D. Reuse Decision
a. Deciding closer function to the original, or,
b. New function needed minimum intervention
E. Project Designing (with complementary reports)

355
 a. Restoration projects (with suitable additions or alterations in
terms of size, scale, texture and colour, and compulsory
reconstruction or reintegration – if needed for reuse-)
b. Reuse (interior design) project
c. Rehabilitation/installation projects
i. Mechanical (heating, plumbing, air conditioning)
ii. Electrical (strong current, weak current)
iii. Fire suppression
iv. Security
v. Others
F. Implementation
a. Restoration interventions
b. Rehabilitation interventions
c. Reuse interventions86
G. Impact assessment
a. Building Scale
i. Physical results
ii. Spatial perception and significance
b. Physical Environmental Scale
c. Social Scale
H. Monitoring
a. Management Plan87
b. Maintenance plan
During the whole process it is necessary to consider interdscyipliner collaboration with
conservation professionals (archaeologist, architect, engineers and other dscyplines
needed for the case) owners, users and (if necessary) residents. It is also important to
obtain a sustainable adaptation that using environmentally-friends technologies,
considering energy efficiency and emphasising social accessibility. Codes were major
and restrictive factors for reuse and rehabilitation decisions. Financial parameters
(total cost for reuse interventions, granting or credits to support the process i.e.) have
also more importance for new use preference, if the cultural asset is in private
ownership.

86
For reuse implementations, rehabilitation interventions may be considered part of reuse interventions.
87
For complex (group of) buildings.

356
4.2.6. Post Refunctioning Process: Monitoring and Management

Maintenance plan is the complementary part of conservation process and it is essential

for sustainability of a qualified use of historic buildings protecting the character
defining features. Although, the self-standing medreses were not so large buildings
with complex uses, there is no management plan of them. However, the complexes
including medrese, mosque and other buildings in relation in terms of context need a
management plan. In such cases, the maintenance plan of the medrese forms a part
of the management plan for the group of building or the complex.

The studied medreses under the ownership of DGF have no maintenance plan.
However, they were being monitored and reported by the officials once in 4 months in
accordance with the 65th article of the internal regulation of DGF.88 This condition
was also included in the allocation protocols of medreses. In allocation protocols, the
conditions were defined as social and cultural functions, and limited with protecting
the original features of the building. According to 63th article of Foundation
Regulation, users were not allowed to use the allocated buildings out of defined
functions. They cannot make any repair or addition without any approved project. The
users cannot assign the whole building or some parts of it to third persons without a
written approval of DGF.

Although there were some strict conditions about monitoring of allocated buildings
including medreses in internal regulations of DGF, which were expressed in allocation
protocols, some of the medreses were used out of approved conditions, such as Sultan
Ahmet Medrese, Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese and Rüstem Paşa Medrese. On the other
hand, some of studied medreses suffer from rising damp problem resulting in decrease
of spatial quality even though they have a drainage system. For instance, Rüstem Paşa
and Rabi medreses had rising damp problem due to the historic cisterns underground
and Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese had the same problem due to stilted level of street. The
rising damp reduces the physical comfort conditions of the spaces and harmful for long
term uses in terms of health.

These ongoing structural needs and post refunctioning reuse problems

demonstrate that management of medreses for a sustainable protection requires
having a maintenance plan including all the weaknesses and critical points of the

88
65th article of Foundation Regulation regulates monitoring of granted buildings with 4 month periods.

357
building to be checked periodically by users, conservation experts and technicians
of the responsible institution.

358
 Table 4.1. Overall Evaluation of Medreses

89 The sign * refers to the secondary functions that one or more of those were included in the medrese. Secondary
functions observed in the cases were; Academic, Administrative, Gastronomic, Accomodational and Museum uses.

359
Table 4.2. Diversity of Uses of The Spaces in Studied Medreses.

360
Table 4.3. Overall analisis of appropriateness of reuse of the case medreses from
aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and
contemporary sustainability approaches

361
362
Table 4.4. A Proposed Process for Reuse of Ottoman Medreses in Istanbul

363
364
4.3. Proposals

Medreses were very special and sensitive heritage buildings and only 86 medreses
exist in Istanbul in 2023. The best way to protect a heritage building to carry it to the
next generations is conserve it using for a proper function; because, the heritage
buildings were the common heritage of the nations and of the whole people. On the
other hand, it is accepted that the most suitable function is the one which is the most
compatible with the original. For this reason, refunctioning of medreses is a topic that
needs to be studied carefully. For the refunctioning of heritage buildings and the
medreses in particular, the following principals are recommended that;

1. An appropriate process and principals proposed by conservation experts should

be followed for refunctioning of heritage buildings in order to eliminate
damaging interventions, misuses and finally to keep the significance.
2. The balance between the original context and character of the building and the
new function should be considered.
3. The question “the proposed new function should be in a historical building”
and the question “contemporary equipment and other technical requirements
of the proposed new function are suitable for the architectural and spatial
features of the selected historical building” should be answered in a respect.
4. A well-prepared functional program which consider the potential of the
original spaces and their character has a critical importance to start the
refunctioning process of a historical building.
5. The advantage of being part of a group of building should be considered as an
opportunity to give incompatible functions to more suitable spaces in other
buildings.
6. New uses that need unsuitable refurnishing and equipment in the closed spaces
and those uses that require inappropriate interventions on the historical
structure causing loss of significance should be avoided.
7. Structural additions and interventions can only be allowed in case that do not
give damage both to the original structure and the historical architectural
perception.

365
8. The spaces having elaborated architectural features and special ornamentations
can be refunctioned for temporary functions and should be kept accessible for
visitors so that they may exhibit themselves as much as possible.
9. Unfunctioned original indoor architectural elements, such as; fireplaces and
niches, should be conserved as decorative elements.
10. Original outdoor architectural elements, such as; fountains, wells and other
unique elements should be conserved in their original locations as much as
possible.
11. For a sustainable protection, a management plan including maintenance plan
and monitoring criteria is essential.
12. Considering the rhythm on the architectural features of rooms of Ottoman
medreses, new functions requiring diversity of spaces should be avoided.
13. Backyards, as secondary spaces of medreses, can be used to construct
compulsory additional spaces for the new function. However, the balance
between the green and the constructed area should be considered.

366
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Medreses are single-storey and mostly stand-alone structures with a special

architectural character and layout which consist revaks surrounding a courtyard,
independent rooms opening to the revaks, and a classroom. The relationship between
the courtyard, the revaks, the classroom and the rooms are based on the hierarchy of
open-semi open-closed spaces that come together in different compositions. The
spatial hierarchy is the most character defining features of the medreses. The sizes and
scales of the spaces of medreses are also other charter defining features that makes the
medreses special as the topic of reuse.

Since the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman State in 1453, hundreds of medreses
were built in different parts and districts of the city in accordance with the education
system of the period. In 19th century, when the education system changed, medrese
architecture also differed according to the changing needs program and architectural
trend. Therefore, in the 19th century is a period in which the interest in the use of the
previous medrese structures began to decline, as the old education system began to be
abandoned, and a new education structure architecture based on the classroom order
emerged. At the beginning of the Republican Period, the education system was
completely changed with the Law of Unification of Education adopted in 1924 and
this caused most of the medreses to be abandoned and demolished in time. Some of
the urban rehabilitation works of 20th century also resulted in destruction of some
medreses. Due to these changes in functional, legislative and environmental
framework, medreses were subjected to diversity of functions by different users during
the last century.

In this thesis, it was first seen at the beginning of the study that the use of medreses by
different foundations, associations or universities for educational and cultural purposes
gradually increase over time. Besides, there was also a tendency to reconstruction of
the demolished medreses within 21th century conservation plan decisions.

367
In the preliminary research carried out within the scope of the thesis, 210 madrasas
built before 19th century have been identified. 124 of these medreses were completely
destroyed over time and 86 of the medreses which were the subject of the study reached
the 21th century. Most of the 86 medreses were using with different functions by
different users, some of them were under restoration including functioning or
adaptation works, and some of them were unused for different reasons. As the
medreses were foundation originated buildings in original, most of them were
managing by General Directorate of Foundations, DGF. 73 of the 86 medreses
reaching the 21th century were under the responsibility of the DGF in 2015-2016 when
the survey of this study had been completed.

Since 2002, the intensive efforts of the General Directorate of Foundations to increase
foundation revenues have also enabled an intense increase in the restoration works of
foundation cultural assets as it was explained in the Chapter I. Within this intense
restoration movement, 10 of medreses under the responsibility of the General
Directorate of Foundations were subjected to refunctioning in the period after 2002.

In some cases, especially the medreses to be used for academic purposes or by

academics, these principals were considered. In social-cultural uses by NGO’s,
overdesing is the main problem due to administrative uses and four-season comfort
expectations.

5.1. Results of the Thesis

Social-educational-cultural-academic functions were the most compatible uses defined

in the conservation plans and allocation documents as a framework. However,
facilities and functions that were loaded to the medrese were depended on the users’
expectations in detail. Ignorance of balance between the need program and the
architectural character of the medrese is the main reason of misuses resulting in loss
of significance damaging to the original architectural features and interior architectural
perception. Permanent uses including administrative facilitates were the most
triggered reason distorting the use and conservation balance.

Direct connection between closed spaces and semi open space supports the individual
uses of the rooms needed minimum equipment and the uses that were as close as to

368
the original. Academic uses and one by one trainings of certain types of artistic
branches were the most compatible uses for the rooms. The rooms that coud not fulfill
the contemporary spatial comfort conditions for individuals, can be subjected to proper
art events. The character defining elements and spatial character of the rooms should
be emphasized for all kind of reuse decisions.

Due to the sizes of the space, the classroom is used for group activities in medreses.
The group activities were compatible with the original use. However, the type and the
duration of the event needed overdesign with permanent refurnishing and technical
equipment were seen in most cases. Besides, the classrooms were the most decorated
and the most expressive spaces of the medreses. Exhibiting the spaces’ itself was
ignored in most cases with introverted activities. The classrooms should be more
accessible and subjected to temporary events to help exhibit itself avoiding overdesign.
The eivans, as the semi open classrooms for hot seasons were completely ignored in
refunctioning of the case medreses, even they were very rare examples in Istanbul
medreses.

In most cases the revaks were used for broad participated group events together with
circulation. This style of use also compatible with the original use of the revaks.
However, it is important to avoid improper refurnishing or improper interventions,
such as closure of the revaks, in order to keep the architectural character of the
medrese.

The character of the courtyard is seen in two different types in the studied medreses; a
landscaped garden or paved courtyard. The original function of the courtyard as a
recreative space supporting the activities held in semi open and closed spaces were
kept in some cases. The recreative character of the landscaped courtyards should be
respected and emphasized in all the medreses. The paved courtyards were subjected to
broad participated events in the cases. However, due to the great spatial potential, the
paved courtyards were subjected to overdesign both by refurnishing and interventions
for closure of the space. Both approaches resulted in loose of architectural character
of medreses. In order to keep the original architectural character of the paved courtyard
in a medrese, procurement of gastronomic services may be preferred to avoid some of
the spaces to be filled with furnitures. In addition, temporary uses during worm seasons
may be preferred to avoid constructional interventions giving damage to the
significance of the medrese, such as closure of the revaks and courtyard roofing.

369
Besides, as the need of wet service space is indispensable for any kind of use and any
kind of building, service space reorganization or addition is one of the most critical
problematics of refunctioning of medreses. This study demonstrates that backyards, as
secondary spaces, offer a good opportunity for limited additional or adjacent buildings
to be constructed.

In the case medreses it is mostly observed that, architectural elements were not used
and exhibited effectively neither in rooms, nor classrooms and courtyards. This is also
the subject that is needed to be evaluated within the reuse process.

In conclusion, the context, layout, spatial capacity and architectural character of the
character defining components of medreses the factors that need to be evaluated all
together as they effect the compatible new uses in building scale. This study
demonstrates that well defined and controlled uses without including full-time
business activities or permanent interventions were the most suitable functions for
medreses globally. In the light of this criteria, it can be evaluated that eligible
temporary uses, such as; academic, cultural, and ceremonial meetings, art exhibitions,
fast-breaking dinner organizations, academic lectures and similar broad participated
social events were compatible uses with the classrooms, the revaks and the paved
courtyards of medreses. For rooms, temporary individual office uses, such as;
academic researches for researchers, book translations or writings for authors, certain
types of art project works and one by one art trainings needed limited equipment, art-
craft exhibitions for suitable collections, individual or one by one musical trainings or
works, contemporary art installations accompanied with acoustical performances. In
order to fulfill the gastronomic needs both for individual users and for broad
participated events taking a catering service seems the most compatible solution as it
is the closest approach to the original use.

This study also demonstrates that during refunctioning and rehabilitation works of
medreses, existing legal procedures were followed by both authorities and
professionals carefully. Rehabilitations were made with a high sense and strictly
controlled. According to restoration project reports, “minimum intervention” was the
main principal on rehabilitations. Interior design projects were also considered
essential for reuse of medreses to protect architectural character and significance by
some of the users. However, because the restoration process is not a short time
constructional work that is open to unpredicted obstacles and the allocations of the

370
medreses to users were done for a certain period of time, non-legislative conservative
actions can be ignored easily during the refunctioning phase.

Together with these, the contemporary awarneses on heritage conservation, such as;
environmental rehabilitation, car park solution, accessibility for disables, energy
efficiency, public cooperation for reuse decision and management plan preparing were
not considered neither by decision makers nor by the users.

In the post refunctioning phase, with the effect of conservation understanding of

related parts both users and inspection responsibles, improper interventions and
misuses effecting the architectural character and spatial perception negatively may not
be recognized.

5.2. Further Reseach Topics

1. For these reasons as it was explained in the Chapter 4.3. and the Chapter 5.1,
there is an urgent need for the definition of reuse principals of medreses and
preparing a guideline for a proper refunctioning process to be followed. This
will help to convey these special and sensitive buildings to the future
generations keeping their significances.
2. Case by case studies to be made in the building scale, as it was aimed at the
beginning of this study, will be helpful to verify the suitability of the proposed
reuse processes explained in the Chapter IV, Table 4.4. Academic and in
practice collaboration may be a better way to exemplify this kind of
verification.
3. In order to prepare an overall reuse principals and guideline for refunctioning
process for all the heritage buildings of Türkiye, it may be useful to make a
similar survey for different types of historical buildings, such as; civil
architectural heritage buildings, industrial heritage buildings, modern heritage
buildings etc.

371
372
 REFERENCES

1. 2010 Vakıf Medeniyeti İstanbul 2010, 2010 Vakıf Medeniyeti İstanbul Yılı ve
Vakıflar Haftası Etkinlikleri,
2. A Cultural Atlas of the Turkish World 1999, v.2, by commission, Türk
Kültürüne Hizmet Vakfı Publications, Istanbul.
3. Ahunbay, Z. 1994, “Medreseler”, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, c:5, Ministry of
Culture and Tarih Foundation Publishing, Istanbul.
4. Ahunbay, Z. 1994-2, “Siyavuş Paşa Medresesi”, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, c:7,
Ministry of Culture and Tarih Foundation Publishing, Istanbul.
5. Alioğlu, Prof. F., Aydemir, Dr. Olcay. 2011, “Haseki Hürrem Sultan Külliyesi,
Tarihsel Veriler Bağlamında Külliyenin Geçirdiği Onarımlar”, Restorasyon
Dergisi, İstanbul Vakıflar Bölge Müdürlüğü, Istanbul.
6. Alkan, G. 2007, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis “İstanbul Mimar Sinan Dönemi
külliyeleri içinde medreselerin yeri ve Edirnekapı Mihrimah Sultan
Medresesi”, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul.
7. Altun, F. İ. 2009, İstanbul’un 100 Roma-Bizans Eseri, İstanbul Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, Kültür A.Ş. Yayınları, Istanbul.
8. Angel, A. 1987, “Henri Prost ve İstanbul'un İlk Nazım Planı, “Mimarlık, v:222,
Chamber of Architects, Istanbul.
9. Arseven, C.E. 1984, Türk Sanatı, Cem Yayınları, Istanbul.
10. Aşkun, İ. Y. 1980, “Medrese Yapıları ve Koruma İlkeleri Doğrultusunda
Çağdaş Yaşam İçindeki İşlevleri”, Unpublished Phd Thesis, İstanbul Devlet
Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi, Yüksek Mimarlık Fakültesi, Istanbul.
11. Aydın, D, Yaldız, Esra 2010, “Yeniden Kullanıma Adaptasyonda Bina
Performansının Kullanıcılar Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi”, METU JFA
2010/1, Ankara.
12. Aygen, Z. 2013, International Heritage and Historic Building Conservation:
Saving the Past, Routledge Publications, New York.
13. Ayman, E. 1995, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis “A Methodological Survey on
Two Examples of The Museums Housed in The Ottoman Medreses and a
Restoration Proposal For The Complex Of Amcazade Hüseyin Paşa in
Istanbul”, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
14. Baltacı, C. 1976, XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilat, Tarih,
Istanbul.
15. Baltacı, C. 2005-1, XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri I, Marmara
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, Istanbul.

373
16. Baltacı, C. 2005-2, XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri II, Marmara
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, Istanbul.
17. Binan, C. 2014, “Türkiye Mimari Mirası Koruma Bildirgesi ve Koruma-
Restorasyon Uygulamalarında İlkelerin Önemi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”,
Presentation in Med-Art Symposium in 3-4 November 2014, Istanbul.
18. Bozkurt, N. 2003, Medrese, DİA, C. XXVIII, Ankara.
19. By: Miele, Christopher. Art Journal.” A Small Knot of Cultivated
People”, Summer 95, Vol. 54 Issue 2, p73, Black and White Photographs,
Database: MasterFILE Complete
20. By: Woodman, Ellis. Building Design. “Back From the Dead “, 2/15/2008,
Issue 1806, p10-13. 4p. 9 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph. ,
Database: Business Source Complete
21. Cansever, T. 2005, Mimar Sinan, Albaraka Türk Yayınları, Istanbul.
22. Çobanoğlu, A.V. 1996, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis “İstanbul’da XVII. Yüzyıl
Külliyeleri”, Istanbul University, Istanbul.
23. Doğan, S. 1997, “Haseki Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:16, Istanbul.
24. Domer, D. 2009, “Old But Not Good Old History: Prospects and Problems of
Freezing Time in Old Buildings” Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research (JSTORE), 26:2 (Summer, 2009).
25. Duyuran. R. 1957, İstanbul’da Yapılan Başlıca Arkeolojik Araştırmalar,
Nurgök Matbaası, Istanbul.
26. Dündar, A. Yard. Doç. Dr. 2003, “Bir Belgeye Göre Amasya İkinci Bayezid
Külliyesi”, AÜİFD, c. XLIV, v:2, Ankara.
27. Emmit, S., 2012, Architectural Technology (Second Edition), Blackwell
Publishing.
28. Ertuğ, Z. Tarım 2012, “Topkapı Sarayı”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:41, Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
29. Erünsal, E. İ, 2002, “Kılıç Ali Paşa Kütüphanesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:25,
Istanbul.
30. Erünsal, E. İ. 2008, “Rüstem Paşa Kütüphanesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:35,
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
31. Eyice. S.-1 1994, “Bayezid Külliyesi” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi
volume:2, Kültür Bakanlığı-Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul 1994.
32. Eyice. S.-2 1994, “Beyazıt Hamamı” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi
volume:2, Kültür Bakanlığı-Tarih Vakfı, Istanbul 1994.
33. Eyice, S. 1996, “Beyazıt II Camii ve Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:6,
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.

374
34. Eyüpgiller, K., Özaltın M. 2007, “Restitüsyon ve Restorasyon”, Bir Şaheser:
Süleymaniye Külliyesi – Editor: Selçuk Mülayim-, Pg:203, T.C. Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara.
35. Feilden, B.M. 1982 Conservation of Historic Buildings, International Centre
for The Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), Rome.
36. Freely, J., Ahmet S. Çakmak 2004, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Gönül, B. 2010, Tarihi Yapıları “İç Mekanı Koruyarak” Kullanmak,
“Tasarımda Genç Bakışlar Ulusal Sempozyumu”, 27.10. 2010, Istanbul
Commerce University, Istanbul.
38. Güçhan, N. Ş., Kul, Esra, 2009, “A History of Development of the
Conservation Measures in Turkey: From the Mid 19th Century Until 2004”,
METU JFA 2009/2, Pg:19-44, Ankara.
39. Günay, R. 2002, Mimar Sinan ve Eserleri, Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları,
Istanbul
40. Ildız, D. 2006, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis “Gökdere Medresesi Örneğinde
Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Öncesi Bursa Medreseleri”, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
University, Istanbul.
41. İpekoğlu, B. 2015, Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı-2
(Editor: Murat Yılmaz), “Birleşik İşlevli Yapılar”, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara.
42. Karakaya, E. 2002, “Koca Sinan Paşa Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, v:26,
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
43. Karakök, T. 2013, “Yükseköğretim Kurumu Olarak osmanlı’da Medreseler:
Bir Değerlendirme”, Bartın University, Journal of Faculty of Education,
volume 2, issue 2, Bartin.
44. Kasmo, R. 2008, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis “Restoration Project of Al-
Ahmadiyya School in Aleppo”, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul.
45. Köksal, G., Ahunbay, Zeynep (2006) “İstanbul’daki Endüstri Mirası İçin
Koruma ve Yeniden Kullanım Önerileri”, İTÜ/a Dergisi, c:5, s.2, Sf:125-136.
46. Kuban, D. 1993, “Külliyeler”, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi v:5, pg:165, Ministry of
Culture and Tarih Foundation Publishing, Istanbul.
47. Kuban, D. 1994, “Şehzade Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:7, Istanbul.
48. Kuban, D. 1994-2, "Beyazıt", Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, v: 2, Ministry of Culture
and Tarih Foundation Publishing, Istanbul.
49. Kuran, A. 1969, Anadolu Medreseleri v:1, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi
Mimarlık Fakültesi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara.
50. Kuran, A. 1986, Mimar Sinan, Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları, Istanbul.

375
51. Kurşun, Prof. Z, Cantemir Bekir, Güleç Mustafa 2008, Medaris-i İstanbul -
Yaşayan İstanbul Medreseleri, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Directorate
of Press and Publication, Istanbul.
52. Kütükoğlu, M. 2000, XX. Asra Erişen İstanbul Medreseleri, Türk Tarih
Kurumu, Ankara.
53. Madran, E. 1996, “Cumhuriyet’in İlk Otuz Yılında (1920-1950) Koruma
Alanının Örgütlenmesi-1”, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, v.16 (1-2),
p.59-97.
54. Manjusha, M., 2009, International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol.66,
No.2., p. 255-256.
55. Muslubaş, A. 2007, Sultanahmet Tarihi Alanı Araştırması, Çevre Düzenlemesi
Öncesi İnceleme ve Metod Önerisi, Yay Yayıncılık.
56. Mülayim, S. 2010, “Süleymaniye Camii ve Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi,
vol.38, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
57. Müller-Wiener, W. 1977, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, (translated
edition by Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık in 1998 “İstanbul’un Tarihsel
Topografyası”, Second Edition, 2002, Istanbul).
58. Nayır, Z. 1975, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis “Osmanlı Mimarlığında Sultan
Ahmet Külliyesi ve Sonrası”, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul.
59. Orman, İ. 2003, “Medrese”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:23, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı,
Istanbul.
60. Orman, İ, 2010, “Şehzade Külliyesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:38, Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
61. Öner, O. 1982, “Eski Yapıların Turizm Amaçlı Değerlendirilmesi”, Rölöve ve
Restorasyon Dergisi, I. Restorasyon Semineri Özel Sayısı, Vakıflar Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları, p. 91-92, Ankara.
62. Ötüken, Semiha Y. 1974, Isa Kapi Mescidi und Medresesi, Unpublished Phd
Thesis, Inaugural Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der
Philosophischen Fakultat der Rheinischen Friedrich – Wilhelms – Universität
zu Bonn.
63. Öztürk, N. 1995, “Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, c:11,
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
64. Özbay, A. 2001, “Functional alternatives for the preservation of the Siyavuş
Paşa Medresesi in Eminönü-İstanbul” Unpublished Ms Thesis, METU,
Ankara.
65. Riaubiene, E. 2012, “Use of Architectural Heritage: Challenges of Preservation
and Adaptation”, Vilnius Gediminus Technical University, Architecture and
Urban Planning, 2012/6.
66. Sözen, M. 1975, Türk Mimarisinin Gelişimi ve Mimar Sinan, İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, Ankara.

376
67. Sözen, M. 1984, Osmanlı Dönemi Türk Mimarlığı, İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, Ankara.
68. Shopsin, W. 1986, Restoring Old Buildings for Contemporary Uses: An
American Sourcebook for Architects and Preservationists, Watson-Guptill
Publication, New York.
69. Tayşi, M.S., Ülker, Mustafa 2005, “Millet Kütüphanesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi,
v:30, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
70. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building
Reuse, 2011, p.14.
71. Worthing, D., Bond Stephen 2008, Managing Built Heritage the Role of
Cultural Values and Sgnificance, Second Edition 2016, Wiley Blackwell,
London.
72. Uluçam, A. 1995 “Feyzullah Efendi Medresesi”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, v:12,
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Istanbul.
73. Yediyıldız, B. 1989, “Sinan’ın Yaptığı Eserlerin Sosyal ve Kültürel Açıdan
Tahlili”, VI. Vakıf Haftası Türk Vakıf Medeniyeti Çerçevesinde “Mimar Sinan
ve Dönemi” Sempozyumu 5-8 Aralık 1988, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü
Yayınları, Istanbul.
74. Yılmaz, Y. 2008, Kanuni Vakfiyesi Süleymaniye Külliyesi, Vakıflar Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara.
75. Yücel, E., 1966, “Bizans Devrinde Hipodrom”, Arkitekt, 1966-02 (322), p.84-
88, İstanbul.
76. Yüksel. I.A. 1993, “Atik Ali Paşa Külliyesi” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul
Ansiklopedisi volume:1, Kültür Bakanlığı-Tarih Vakfı, Istanbul 1993.

REPORTS

77. Fatih District 1/1000 Conservation Plan Report, 2003, Istanbul Metropolitan
Municipality, Istanbul.
78. Fatih Conservation Plan Report, 2003, Tarihi Yarımada Eminönü-Fatih 1/1000
Ölçekli Koruma İmar Planı Raporu, 2003, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi,
İstanbul.
79. IHMR 2011, Istanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan Report, 2011,
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Istanbul.
80. Lighting System Report of Rabi Medrese, 2003, by Yapı Fiziği Uzmanlık
Enstitüsü (YFU Instıtute), archive of Conservation Council I of Istanbul.
81. Measured Drawing Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2010, Archive of
Directorate General for Foundations, Istanbul.
82. Restitution Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2010, Archive of Directorate
General for Foundations, Istanbul.

377
83. Restoration Report of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese, 2010, Archive of Directorate
General for Foundations, Istanbul.
84. Restoration Report of Sultan Ahmet Medrese, 2011, Archive of Conservation
Council IV of Istanbul.
85. Survey Report of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese by Anfora Architecture, 2011,
Archive of Galata Restoration Ltd. Co., Istanbul.
86. Worksite Report of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese Restoration, 2012, Archive of
Directorate General for Foundations, Istanbul.

ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS
Documents from DGF Archives:
87. Charter 1, 1505 (911 H), Turkish Transcription of the Foundation Charter of
Sultan II. Bayezid, Book No:33, Archive of Directorate General for
Foundations, Ankara.
88. Charter 2, 1551 (958 H), Turkish Transcription of the Foundation Charter of
Haseki (Hürrem) Sultan, Book No:608/2, Page 222, Line 177, Archive of
Directorate General for Foundations, Ankara.
89. Charter 3, 1546 (953 H), Turkish Transcription of the Foundation Charter of
Şehzade Sultan Mehmet the son of Sultan Süleyman Han, Book No:613,
Page:1, Line:1, Archive of Directorate General for Foundations, Ankara.
90. Charter 4, 1578 (965 H), Turkish Transcription of the Charter of Rüstem Paşa
Foundation, Book No:635/2, Page:137, Line:13, Archive of Directorate
General for Foundations, Ankara.
91. Charter 5, 1561 (968 H), Turkish Transcription of the Charter of Rüstem Paşa
İbni Mustafa Paşa Foundation, Book No:635/2, Page:153, Line:17, Archive of
Directorate General for Foundations, Ankara.
92. Charter 6, Turkish Transcription of the Charter of Süleymaniye, Kasa 135,
Archive of Directorate General for Foundations, Ankara.
93. Charter 7. Kılıç Ali Paşa Vakfiyesi, Kılıç Ali Paşa, nr. 1052, Book No:8b,
Page:40a., Süleymaniye Library,

94. Charter 8, 1590 (998 H) Turkish Transcription of the Charter of Fatma Sultan
Foundation, Book No:732, Page:295, Line:254, Archive of Directorate
General for Foundations, Ankara.
95. Charter 9, Koca Sinan Pasha
96. Charter 10, 1613-1614 (1022 H) Turkish Transcription of the Sultan Üçüncü
Mehmed Han Oğlu Sultan Birinci Ahmed Han Vakfiyesi, Book No:574,
Page:80, Line:40.
97. DGF document-1, 14.03.1953 approval dated final approval report about Atik
Ali Paşa Medrese 1951 repair, archive of DGF, Istanbul.

378
98. DGF document-2, 23.08.1972 dated official corresponding about Atik Ali Paşa
Medrese investigation, archive of DGF, Istanbul.
99. DGF document-3, 28.01.1975 dated official corresponding about Atik Ali Paşa
Medrese measured drawings, archive of DGF, Istanbul.
100. DGF document-4, 17.11.1967 dated payment report and additional list
of works.
101. DGF document-5, approved time schedule of mechanical repair works
about heating system between 29.11.1974-08.05.1975, archive of DGF,
Istanbul.
102. DGF document-6, 15.02.1999/452-E date/numbered official
corresponding about unpermitted interventions on Şehzade Medrese.
103. DGF document-7, 22.IX.1964/725 date/numbered official
corresponding about 1956 interventions of Rüstem Paşa Medrese made by
contractors Şahin Giray and Konstantin Iskarpatiyoti.
104. DGF document-8, 1961 dated bill of quantity about restoration of Rabi
Medrese.
105. DGF document-9, 16.05.1966 dated and 255 numbered official corresponding.
106. DGF document-10, 28.09.1968 dated and 323 numbered official
corresponding.
107. DGF document-11, 19.01.1962 dated and 14 numbered decisions of Council
of Directorate General for Foundations regarding Sultan Ahmet Medrese.
108. DGF document-12, 17.07.1962 dated granting protocol of Sultan Ahmet
Medrese.
109. DGF document-13, 31.05.1966 dated report by a DGF officer regarding Sultan
Ahmet Medrese.
110. DGF document-14, 04.07.2014 dated official corresponding about Atik Ali
Paşa Medrese, archive of DGF, Istanbul.
111. EVOS, Integrated Foundation Automation System / Entegre Vakıf Otomasyon
Sistemi, Digital Database of DGF.
112. Restoration Report of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese, undated report, archive of DK
Architecture.

Documents from Council of Conservation of Cultural Assets Archive:

113. Council IV document-1, 04.04.1986 dated mechanical report to Foundation
Calligraphic Arts Museum Directorate by Mechanical Engineer of Halil Oğur.
114. Council IV document-2, 24.08.1989 dated and 1078 numbered official
document of DGF to the Istanbul Council I of Conservation of Cultural and
Natural Assets.

379
115. Council IV document-3, 10.04.2013 dated and 1442 numbered decision about
Atik Ali Paşa Medrese.
116. Rehabilitation Council I document-1, 16.07.2013 dated and 35657 numbered
official corresponding about Salis Medrese.
117. Rehabilitation Council I document-2, 1973 dated report of architect Besim
Çeçener.
118. Rehabilitation Council I document-3, 20.07.2001 dated official corresponding
of TUBA to DGF.
119. Rehabilitation Council I document-4, 15.11.2005 dated official corresponding
of TUBA to the council and its appendix.
120. Council II document-1, 15.10.2003 dated and 15438 numbered decision of
Council II.
121. Council II document-2, 02.06.2005 dated and 2337 numbered corresponding
of 1907 Fenerbahce Foundation to Protection Council II of Istanbul Cultural
Assets regarding Kilic Ali Pasha Medrese.
122. Council II document-3, 07.06.2005 dated and 4029 numbered corresponding
of 1907 Fenerbahce Foundation to DGF Regional Directorate of Istanbul I
regarding Kilic Ali Pasha Medrese.

FIGURES
123. Archive of DGF
124. Archive of IRDF
125. Archive of Cultural Heritage Council IVof Istanbul
126. German Archaeology Instıtute
127. Project Reports (Kılıç Ali Paşa)
128. Private Archive of Zübeyde Cihan Özsayıner
129. Private Archive of Kübra Construction Co.
130. Eyice.S 1992, "Bayezid II Camii ve Külliyesi" İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol 6,
Diyanet Foundation, Istanbul.
131. Google Earth
132. IMM, Kurumsal Bilgi Uygulaması, https://ibbkbs.ibb.gov.tr, 16.04.2016
133. IMM 2023, Istanbul News Archive,
https://www.ibb.istanbul/arsiv/40559/ibb-tarihi-beyazit-meydanini-eski-
gorkemine-k, 28.08.2023
134. German Blues, Alman Mavileri 2007, 1913-1914 I. Dünya savaşı Öncesi
İstanbul Haritaları, v.3, (by İrfan Dağdelen), Kütüphaneler ve Müzeler
Müdürlüğü Yayınları No. 38., Istanbul.

380
135. Freely, J. and Çakmak, A. 2004, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul,
Cambridge University Press, New York.

136. Matrakçı Nasuh 1533, Facsimile of Beyan-ı Menazil-i Sefer-i Irakeyn-I

Sultan Süleyman Han, 2015, Published by Istanbul University Rare Books
Library, Mas Press, Istanbul.
137. Çayeli Foundation, Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese,
https://www.cayelivakfi.com.tr/, 24.08.2023

INTERNET SOURCES
138. PPS 5 2010 (Planning Policy Statement 5), Planning for the Historic
Environment, by English Heritage,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120920011334/http://www.com
munities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1514132.pdf,
13.07.2017
139. PPS 6 1999 (Planning Policy Statement 6), Planning, Archaeology and
Built Heritage, by English Heritage,
http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_supple
mentary_planning_guidance/pps06.htm., 01.09.2011
140. 660 nolu İlke Kararı 1999, Kültür Bakanlığı Kültür varlıklarını Koruma
Yüksek Kurulu, http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,14330/660-nolu-ilke-
karari-tasinmaz-kultur-varliklarinin-grup-.html, 12.07.2017
141. KTB, Alan Başkanlığı, www.alanbaskanligi.com, 10.11.2016
142. RG 1924:63, Law No. 430,
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov
.tr/arsiv/63.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/63.pdf,
13.07.2017
143. RG 1925:256, Law No. 694,
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/a
rsiv/256.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/256.pdf, 13.07.2017
144. Arkitera, Urban Plan of Prost,
http://www.arkitera.com/galeri/detay/53232/18, 22.08.2017
145. Süperaktif, Local Transport in Istanbul,
http://www.superaktif.net/hayat/istanbulda-kentici-ulasim, 13.07.2017
146. TKGM, Parsel Sorgu, https://parselsorgu.tkgm.gov.tr/, 30.06.2017
147. Öğretmenler Vakfı,
http://www.ogretmenlervakfi.org/icerik/gecmisten_gunumuze/271,
16.08.2017
148. Birlik Vakfı, http://www.birlikvakfi.org.tr/, 16.08.2017

381
149. ICE, İstanbul Commodity Exchange,
http://www.istib.org.tr/hakkimizda/tarihce/32, 24.08.2017
150. Ng Sek San, 2012, http://heritagemalaysia.blogspot.com, 15.01.2016
151. Güvemli, O. 2005, “Türkiye’de Ticaret Liselerinin Kuruluş Öyküsü”,
https://mufad.org.tr/mufad-dergi-arsiv, 27.08.2023
152. Australia ICOMOS, The Burra Charter 1999,
https://australia.icomos.org/, 27.08.2023
153. SPAB MANIFEST 1879, www.spab.org.uk, 19.03.2014
154. TMMKB 2013, ICOMOS Turkey Architectural Heritage Conservation
Charter, http://www.icomos.org.tr/?Sayfa=Tuzukler1&dil=en, 24.05.2016
155. Historicengland, Technical Advice,
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/buildings/maintenance-
and-repair-of-older-buildings/maintenance-plans-for-older-buildings/,
14.03.2016
156. ICOMOS, Venice Charter
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf, 14.03.2016
157. DK Architect, Projects, http://www.dkmim.com/tr/dk-projeler/dk-
mimari-restorasyon/87-kilic-ali-pasa-medresesi-istanbul.html, 03.11.2015
158. Arkitera-2, Story of Galataport, https://www.arkitera.com/haber/10-
maddede-galataportun-hikayesi/, 27.08.2023
159. Hürriyet news, Süleymaniye Mosque,
160. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/seyahat/suleymaniye-camii-nerede-
suleymaniye-camisi-tarihi-ozellikleri-hikayesi-ve-mimari-hakkinda-bilgi-
41612862, 28.08.2023
161. Eski İstanbul Resimleri, http://eski.istanbulium.net/, 14.03.2016

382
APPENDICES

383
APPENDICE A. (TO CHAPTER I). ANALISIS OF THE PROCESSES AND
GUIDELINES DEVELOPED BY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES FOR REUSE OF
HISTORICAL BUILDINGS

384
A.1. Analisis of the Process Developed by Secretary of Interiors for Reuse of a Historical Building in United States of America

385
 STEP 1 DEFINITION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING (SIGNIFICANCE ASSESMENT)
STEP 2 DECISION OF POSSIBLE NEW USE/USES
STEP 3 STUDYING THE BUILDING FOR NEW USE NEEDS IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
GENERAL CRITERIA / FIRST
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
CONSIDERATION
1- If required by new use; Installing mechanical equipment on the roof,
2- If the additional mechanical or service
Roofs equipment does not damage or obscure Designing individually used or staff used additions to roofs
character-defining features, or is (residential, office, storage spaces, elevator housing, etc.),
inconspicuous from the public right-of-way,
Designing and installing additional windows on rear or other-non- Additional windows should not duplicate the
EXTERIOR If designing additional windows are required
character-defining elevations. Additional windows should be fenestration pattern and detailing of a character-
by new use;
compatible with the overall design of the historic building, defining elevation,
Windows
Inserting dropped ceilings cutting across the
If designing a dropped ceiling is required by Providing a setback in the design of dropped ceilings to allow for the
glazed areas of windows recognizing from the
new use; full height of the window openings.
outside.
Enclosure walls with large sheets of glasses recessing them behind the Enclosure walls of solid materials, such as wood,
Entrances and Porches If enclosure wall is required;
historic architectural elements like posts, balustrades, etc. stucco or masonry.
Excavations causing the historic foundations and
1- There can be some structural works not adjacent historic buildings to settle, shift or fail, or
Limiting the new excavations adjacent to historic foundations,
damaging the existing structural system, the excavations destroying the significant
archaeological resources,
Structural corrections changing the interior spaces
2- If the structural works does not damage
Correcting structural deficiencies for new use, or damaging or destroying the character defining
character defining spaces, features or finishes,
features and finishes,
Installing new mechanical and electrical systems
Installing new mechanical or electrical systems for new use (when
Structural System 3- If required by new use, or equipment resulting in numerous cuts, splices or
required) with minimum cutouts or holes in structural elements,
alterations to the structural members,
Inserting new floors damaging the structural
system or interior spaces, features or finishes, and
inserting new floors or furred-down ceilings
Adding a new floor,
cutting across the glazed areas of windows
changing the exterior form and appearance of
them,
Creating an atrium or a light well,
Accomodating service functions (bathrooms, mechanical equipment Dividing rooms, lowering ceilings, damaging
amd office machines, etc.) in secondary spaces (like first floor service character defining features (fireplaces, niches,
areas or upper floors), stairways or alcoves, etc.),
Reusing decorative material or features that have had to be remoced
Discarding reusable historic materials or relocating
during the rehabilitation work (wall, door molding, baseboard,
them in historically inappropriate areas,
paneled doors, etc.),
Enclosing an interior stairway where required by code so that its Enclosing an interior stairway destroying the
INTERIOR character is retained (by means of glazed fire-rated walls in general), stairwell space or character defining features,
Radically changing, damaging or destroying
Spaces, Features and
Placing new code-required stairways or elevators in secondary character-defining spaces, features or finishes
Finishes If required by new use;
service areas, when adding new code-required stairways and
elevator,
Installing permanent partitions to character
1- If required by new use; Installing permanent partitions in secondary spaces,
defining spaces, features or finishes,
2- If not damaging character defining spaces,
Creating an atrium or a light well (if required),
features or finishes,
Inserting a floor that alters the fenestration,
radically changes the character-defining interior
Adding a new floor (if required).
space, or obscures, damages or destroys
decoretive detailing.
1- Heating, air conditioning, electrical and Installing a completely new mechanical system or air conditioning
plumbing systems needed for new use; units protecting historic and character-defining features.
2- If new mechanical system do not damage

386
Adequate structural support for new equipments,
historic structures and architectural elements,

3- If there will not be radically changing,

Mechanical Systems
damaging or destroying on the character- Installing the vertical runs for new use mechanical system in sercive
defining structural elements or interior rooms and wall cavities,
features,
Installing the heating and air-conditioning units in the window frames
without damaging the frames (if there is no other protective solution).

1- Building site and setting reflect

A.2. Guidelines Developed by Secretary of Interiors Regarding Reuse of a Historical Building in United States of America

environmental influences of the historic period Designing new on site parking if required.
BUILDING SITE in which the the property were built.
AND SETTING Designing new exterior additions or adjacent new construction.
2- It is especially important for industrial and
Remowing non-significant buildings, additions or site features
rural properties.
considering the historic character of the site.
Identify and evaluate existing historic features
ENERGY
(to assess inherent energy-conserving Thermal insulation in attics and unheated cellars (to increase the
EFFICIENCY
potential). If retrofitting measures are energy efficiency of existing mevhanical systems)
RETROFITTING
necessary;
1- If there is no character-defining interior
Installing masonry insulation inside,
molding)
2- Compatibility with the historic buildings in
Utilizing the energy conserving features of the existing windows or
terms of mass, materials, relationships to
installing interior or exterior storm windows.
solids to voids, and color.
1- Exterior addition should be considered
NEW ADDITIONS New additions designed carefully and be recognized as a new and
only after deciding that altering non-character
compatible building and they shouldn’t give negative impact on the
–defining interior spaces can not be met the
building’s historic character
new use needs.
2- Compatibility with the historic buildings in
Locating the additions at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a
terms of mass, materials, relationships to
historic building.
solids to voids, and color.
Complying barrier-free access for disables.
ACCESSIBILITY Designing new or additional access means compatible with the
historic building ant its settings.
HEALTH AND Installing sensitively designed fire suppression systems.
SAFETY CODES Adding a new stairway or elevator to meet health and safety codes.

STEP 4 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

A.3. Analisis of the Process Developed by a Federal, Provincial and Territorial Collaboration for Reuse of a Historical Building in Canada

387
A.4. Guidelines Regarding Reuse Criteria for Historic Buildings Expressed in “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”

388
A.5. Analisis of the Process Developed by English Heritage for Change of Use of A Listed Building

389
A.6. Bernard Melchior Feilden’s Approach for Reuse Survey of Historic Buildings

390
A.7. William Shopsin’s Approach for Reuse Survey of Historic Buildings

391
392
 B. (TO CHAPTER III). SITE SURVEY CHARTS ON ANALISIS OF
HISTORIC FEATURES AND THE LAST REUSE INTERVENTIONS OF
THE CASE MEDRESES

393
394
B.1. Chart 1.1. Historic Features of Beyazıt Medrese and Its Built Environment

395
B.2. Chart 1.2. 2013-2016 Reuse Interventions of Beyazıt Medrese.

396
B.3. Chart 2.1. Historic Features of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese and Its Built Environment.

397
B.4. Chart 2.2. 2014-2016 Reuse Interventions of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese.

398
B.5. Chart 3.1. Historic Features of Haseki Medrese and Its Built Environment.

399
B.6. Chart 3.2. 2011-2012 Reuse Interventions of Haseki Medrese.

400
B.7. Chart 4.1. Historic Features of Şehzade Medrese and Its Built Environment.

401
B.8. Chart 4.2. 2013-2016 Reuse Interventions of Şehzade Medrese.

402
B.9. Chart 5.1. Historic Features of Rüstem Paşa Medrese and Its Built Environment.

403
B.10. Chart 5.2. 2009-2012 Reuse Interventions of Rüstem Paşa Medrese.

404
B.11. Chart 6.1. Historic Features of Rabi Medrese and Its Built Environment.

405
B.12. Chart 6.2. 2005-2010 Reuse Interventions of Rabi Medrese.

406
B.13. Chart 7.1. Historic Features of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese and Its Built Environment.

407
B.14. Chart 7.1.1. Reuse Interventions of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese Between 1918-1990

408
B.15. Chart 7.2. 2012-2016 Reuse Interventions Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese.

409
410
B.16. Chart 8.1. Historic Features of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese and Its Built Environment.

411
B.17. Chart 8.2. 2012-2015 Reuse Interventions of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese.

412
B.18. Chart 9.1. Historic Features of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese and Its Built Environment.

413
B.19. Chart 9.2. 2012-2014 Reuse Interventions of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese.

414
B.20. Chart 10.1. Historic Features of Sultan Ahmet Medrese and Its Built Environment.

415
B.21. Chart 10.2. 2012-2014 Reuse Interventions of Sultan Ahmet Medrese.

416
 APPENDICE C. (TO CHAPTER IV). OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF
THE IMPACT OF REUSE DECISIONS ON THE SELECTED MEDRESES
ON ASPECTS OF DESIGN DECISIONS, SPATIAL-STRUCTURAL AND
SYSTEM ALTERATIONS AND CONTEMPORARY SUSTAINABILITY
APPROACHES

417
418
 C.1. Table 4.1. Assessment of the impact of reuse decisions of Beyazıt Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Foundation Calligraphy Arts Museum

Building size (m): 36.63 x 43.90
Number of rooms: 19
Room sizes: 3.60x3.70-3.90
3.75x5.40-5.60-5.75-5.80
Beyazıt Classroom size (m): 7.34x7.40
Medrese Number of eivans: 1
Eivan size (m): 3.74x4.50m
Width of the revaks (m): 3
Courtyard size (m): 33.35x17,62
Total backyard area (sqm): 0

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)

- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Original space reorganisation
Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Alternative Uses Analisis

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Door alteration
Need Program

Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms - - + + + - - - - + +
The classroom + + + + - + + + +
The eivan - - + - - - - + +
+ + + + + + + - -
The revaks + - - + - - - - - + + + +
The courtyard + + + -
Service space +
Backyard +
Overall - - + + -

419
C.2. Table 4.2. Analisis of reuse decisions of Atik Ali Paşa Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Headquarter of Birlik Foundation

Building size (m): 37,20 x 20
Number of rooms: 16
Room sizes: 3.70x3.70
Classroom size (m): 7.33x7.36
Atik Ali Paşa Number of eivans: 0
Medrese
Eivan size (m):
Width of the revaks (m): 3,80
Courtyard size (m): 18,20x12
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)

- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Original space reorganisation
Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Alternative Uses Analisis

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Door alteration
Need Program

Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + - + + + - - + + +
The classroom + + + + + + + +
The eivan +
The revaks + + + + + + + + + + + + - - -
The courtyard + + +
Service space +
Backyard + + + +
Overall + - + + -

420
C.3. Table 4.3. Analisis of reuse decisions of Haseki Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Haseki Reisulkurra Abdurrahman Gürses

Religious Specialization Center
Building size (m):
Number of rooms: 16
Room sizes: 3.3x3.3
Haseki Classroom size (m): 6.75x6.75
Medrese Number of eivans: 0
Eivan size (m):
Width of the revaks (m): 3.35
Courtyard size (m): 16x16
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)

- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + + + + + + + + +
The classroom + + + + + + + +
The eivan +
The revaks + + + + + + + + + + + + - + -
The courtyard + + +
Service space +
Backyard + + + + +
Overall + + + + -

421
C.4. Table 4.4. Analisis of reuse decisions of Şehzade Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Social and Cultural Center of Suffa

Foundation (Headquarter)
Building size (m):
50.25x32.95
Number of rooms: 20
Room sizes: 3.65x3.70
Şehzade Classroom size (m): 8.22x8.22
Medrese
Number of eivans: 1
Eivan size (m): 4.12x4.46
Width of the revaks (m): 3.40 (south east), 4,10
(other wings)
Courtyard size (m): 31.13x19.95
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)

- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + + + + - + +
The classroom + + + + +
The eivan + +
The revaks + + + + + + + + + + -
The courtyard + + +
Service space + + + + - + + +
Backyard + + + +
Overall + + + + +

422
C.5. Table 4.5. Analisis of reuse decisions of Rüstem Paşa Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Bediüzzaman Said Nursi Museum

(Headquarter of Istanbul Science and Culture Foundation)
Building size (m): 42.86x42.76
Number of rooms: 22 + a triangular space
Room sizes: 3.76x3.80 (average)
min 3.61-max 4,00
Rüstem Paşa Classroom size (m): 7.50x7.43
Medrese
Number of eivans: 5
Eivan size (m): 3.70x3.78 (entrance eivan)
Width of the revaks (m): 3.61-3.64
Courtyard size (m): 24.11x24.17 (octagonal)
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)

- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

C Roofing the courtyard
Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard
Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + - - - - - + +
The classroom + + + + + + +
The eivan(s) + + - -
The revaks + + - - + - - + + + + - -
The courtyard + +
Service space + + + + + + +
Backyard + + + + + +
Overall - - + + -

423
C.6. Table 4.6. Analisis of reuse decisions of Rabi Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: TUBA-Rabi Medrese

Building size (m): 37.60 x 36.82
Number of rooms: 20
Room sizes: 3.70x3.70
Classroom size (m): 7.78x7.78
Number of eivans: 1 (entrance and terrace)
Rabi Medrese
Eivan size (m):
Width of the revaks (m): 4.48 and 3,56 (south west)
Courtyard size (m): 24.11x24.17 (octagonal)
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate) Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)
- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + + + + + + + + + + +
The classroom + + + + + + + -
The eivan(s) + + + +
The revaks + + + + + + + + + + + + - - +
The courtyard + + +
Service space + + + + + + +
Backyard + + + +
Overall + + + + -

424
C.7. Table 4.7. Analisis of reuse decisions of Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Kılıç Ali Paşa Medrese Strategic

Reseachs Center
Building size (m): 27.36x28.66
Number of rooms: 17
Room sizes: 3.30x3.30
Classroom size (m):
Kılıç Ali Paşa
Medrese Number of eivans: 1 (entrance)
Eivan size (m): 3.30x3.30
Width of the revaks (m):
Courtyard size (m): 9.35x7.68
Total backyard area (sqm): 13.36

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate) Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)
- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + + + + + + + +
The classroom + + + + + +
The eivan(s) +
The revaks + + + + + + + + + - + -
The courtyard + +
Service space + + + + +
Backyard + +
Overall + + + + -

425
C.8. Table 4.8. Analisis of reuse decisions of Siyavuş Paşa Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Siyavuş Paşa Medrese Hilye and

Prayer-Beads Museum
Building size (m):
Number of rooms: 14
Room sizes: 3.50x3.50
Classroom size (m): 6.82x6.90
Siyavuş Paşa Number of eivans: 0
Medrese
Eivan size (m):
Width of the revaks (m):
Courtyard size (m):
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate) Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)
- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + + + + + - + + + + + +
The classroom + + + + + + + + +
The eivan(s)
The revaks + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + - +
The courtyard + + + + -
Service space + + + + + + +
Backyard
Overall + + + + +

426
C.9. Table 4.9. Analisis of reuse decisions of Koca Sinan Paşa Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Sinan Paşa Medrese

(Headquarter of Hizmet Foundation)
Building size (m): 28.36x29.19
Number of rooms: 16
Room sizes: 3.74x3.70
Classroom size (m): 6.82x6.90
Koca Sinan
Paşa Medrese Number of eivans: 0
Eivan size (m):
Width of the revaks (m): 3.7
Courtyard size (m): 14.3x10.76
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate) Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)
- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks
Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Closure of space
Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + - - - - + + +
The classroom + + + + + + - +
The eivan(s)
The revaks + + + + + + + + + - -
The courtyard + - -
Service space
Backyard + + +
Overall - - + + -

427
C.10. Table 4.10. Analisis of reuse decisions of Sultan Ahmet Medrese on aspects of design decisions, spatial-structural and system alterations and contemporary sustainability approaches

New use: Istanbul Sultan Ahmet Foundation

(Headquarter of Sultan Ahmet
Foundation)
Building size (m): 42.39x33.57
Number of rooms: 24
Room sizes: 3.75x3.75
Sultan Ahmet Classroom size (m): 7.6x7.48
Medrese
Number of eivans: 1 (entrance)
Eivan size (m): 3.75x4.5
Width of the revaks (m): 4.63
Courtyard size (m): 22.88x12.93
Total backyard area (sqm):

Appropriateness of Construction Appropriateness of installed

Reuse Preparations Appropriateness of Design Decisions Sustainability
of Additions systems
+ (appropriate) Architectural elements’ refurbishment (fireplaces)
- (not appropriate)
Architectural elements’ refurbishment (niches)

space, refers to
absence

Wall addition and alteration (in backyard)

Heating (radiator /wrf/underfloor)

Fire alarm and/or fire supression

Management / maintenance plan

Air-conditioning or ventilation
Alternative Uses Analisis

Original space reorganisation

Space alteration to wet space

Roof addition in backyard

Subdivision of the spaces

Service building addition

Accessibility (for public)

Refurbishment of spaces

Subdivision of the space

Significance assessment

Refurnishing of spaces
Roofing the courtyard

Roofing the courtyard

Closure of the revaks

Closure of the space

Closure of windows

Window alteration

Energy efficiency
Need Program

Door alteration
Roof addition
Drawings

Plumbing

Dreinage
Electric

CCTV

Data
Rooms + - + - - - +
The classroom + + + + + - +
The eivan(s) + +
The revaks + + - + + + + + + - - -
The courtyard + + - +
Service space + + +
Backyard +
Overall - - + + -

428
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Surname, Name: Şimşek, Muradiye
Nationality: Turkish (TC)
Date and Place of Birth: 3 January 1975, Istanbul
Matital Status: Marriade
Phone: +90 505 401 57 81
Email: [email protected]

EDUCATION
Degree Institution Year of Graduation
MS FSMVU Architecture 2023
BS Anadolu University Turkish Language and Literature 2020
BS Mimar Sinan University Architecture 1998
High School İnönü Technical High School (Chemistry), İstanbul 1991

WORK EXPERIENCE
Year Place Enrollment
2005-2023 DGF Architect
2003-2004 Uğur Proje-Ender İnşaat Architect
1998-2001 Işın Proje Architect
1995-1998 Turgut Cansever Mimarlık Trainee

FOREIGN LANGUAGE
English

PUBLICATIONS
1. Şimşek M., “Med-Art Eğitim ve Uygulama Projesi: Eğitim Çalışmaları”,
Tarihi Yapıların Korunması (Türkiye ve İtalya Uygulamaları) Uluslararası
Sempozyumu: Sempozyum Bildirileri, (2014)
2. Şimşek M., “Med-Art Eğitim ve Uygulama Projesi Eğitim Çalışmaları”,
Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı, 10,142-150 (2015)
3. Aydemir O., Şimşek M., “Restorasyon Uygulamalarında Çağdaş
Yaklaşımlara Örnekler: Nuruosmaniye Camii ve Zeyrek Şeyh Süleyman
Mescidi Onarımları”, Kargir Yapılarda Koruma Ve Onarım Semineri VIII
Bildiri Kitabı, (2016)
4. Şimşek M., “Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi Restorasyonu (Med-Art) ve Eğitim
Projesi: Eğitim Programı”, Bir Restorasyon Hikâyesi Şeyh Süleyman
Mescidi: Türk – İtalyan Restorasyon İşbirliği, VGM Yayınları, 15-28 (2015)
 5. Şimşek M., Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi Restorasyon Aşaması Genel
Değerlendirmesi”, Bir Restorasyon Hikâyesi Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi: Türk
– İtalyan Restorasyon İşbirliği, VGM Yayınları, 220-221 (2017)
6. Şimşek M., “Medreselerin Yeniden İşlevlendirilmesinde Değerlerinin
Korunması Sorunsalı; Hadım Hasan Paşa Medresesi ve Esekapı Medresesi
Örnekleri”, Uluslararası Katılımlı 6. Tarihi Yapıların Korunması ve
Güçlendirilmesi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, (2017)
7. Griletto A., Vallese S., Aydemir O., Şimşek M., “A Mediterranean History:
The Restoration of Sheikh Souleiam Mescide in Istanbul” Intervenire Sulle
Superfici Dell’architettura Tra Bilanchi e Prospettive by Scienza e Beni
Culturali (2018)
8. Şimşek M., “İtalya Restorasyon Haftası 2000 Etkinlikleri Üzerine Notlar”,
Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı, 21,106-124 (2020)
9. Dabanlı Ö., Şimşek M., “Victor Hugo’nun Mimari Koruma Düşüncesine
Katkıları ve ‘Yıkıcılarla Savaş’ Makalesi”, FSM İlmi Araştırmalar
Dergisi,17,195-224 (2021)
10. Hürata A., Berlucchi N., Kuran F., Aydemir O., Sav M., Şimşek M, “Enez
Fatih Camii Restorasyon ve Rekonstrüksiyonunda Koruma Yaklaşımları”,
Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı, 22, 117-128 (2021)
11. Şimşek M., “Kültür Mirası Üzerindeki Deprem Riskinin Değerlendirilmesi
ve Azaltılması: İtalyan Kılavuzlarındaki İlkeler ve Yöntemler”; Turkish
Summary of Presentation of Claudio Modena’nın Presented in International
Symposium on Management of Earthquake Risks on Historical Buildings,
Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı, 22, 147-151 (2021)
12. Dabanlı Ö., Şimşek M., “Ancient Witnesses of the Silk Road: The Cultural
Tourism Potential of Historical Caravanserais in Anatolia”, Scientific
Culture, 9(1), 89-106 (2023)
13. Simsek M., Bir Restorasyon Hikâyesi Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi: Türk –
İtalyan Restorasyon İşbirliği, ISBN: 978-975-19-6759-6, (2017)
14. Simsek M., “Tarihi Kentlerimizde Mimari ve Mekansal Kültür Birikiminin
İdeal Şehir Projeksiyonuna Katkıları” Kentten İdeal Şehre Yapay
Mekanlardan Sahici Şehirlere, ISBN: 978-605-73-8262-7, (2023)

HOBBIES
Traditional Turkish Arts (Illumination and Miniature)