Elaboración del Mapa de Riesgos de Trabajo para Operaciones de Workover

Two basic studies had been done on Prost, concentrating on his French colonial works. Roger Seasal’s study was an outline of Frost’s North African and later career in P a r i s . B u t it was L ’Œuvre de Henri Prost, Architecture et Urbanisme (1960) that has been the major academic source on the French urban designer. It consists of five critical essays on the urbaniste:^^^ These articles give a broad account of Frost’s professional career. Amongst them, Hautecoeur’s article is important in revealing the background of the designer and basic theoretical influences upon him. It suggests that graduate students at the Villa Medici in Rome developed urban objectives and solutions. The section on Istanbul is an outline illustrated with extraordinary photographs of the 1940s.

During the period of the execution of the Istanbul master plan, four articles were published:^®® In 1953, Dar Alen’s and Gabriel’s articles, and in 1954, Gallatti’s and Royer’s studies briefly presented the Frost Flan and the background of the planner. Gallatti named him as a master of urbanisation from the Atlantic to the Black Sea who gave honour to France. Royer mentioned Frost’s contribution to the urban designs of Karabük, Yalova and Bursa (Anatolian towns).

Three articles were published after his death. Prost was mainly praised in Royer’s (1959 and 1965) and Carlu’s (1959) texts, which gave short biographical information

^55 Prost’s lectures entitled “Istanbul,” trans. Zühtü Feran, Arkitekt, vol. 17, 1948:82-85; and vol. 18, 1949, no page number on the copy.

156 Prost, report of 20.09.1948; published in the annual report of the Istanbul Municipality II ve §ehirde Gegen Yilda Neler Yapildi ve Bu Yil Neler Yapiliyor, 1950-1951 (What was done in the city and province and what has been doing this year?). Istanbul: Belediye Matbaasi, 1951.

157 GQzellegen Istanbul, 1943; Cumhuriyet Devrinde Istanbul, 1949.

158 Roger Seasal, Notice sur le vie et les Travaux de Henri Prost 1874-1959. Paris, 1960; although the book is described at the library of Le Centre de Recherche, I was unable to find it.

158 Louis Hautecceur, "Henri Prost à la Villa Medicis, 1902-1907,” 11-30; J. Marrast, "Maroc,” 49-120; Th. Bamier, "Côte d’Azur Varoise,” 121-140; P.Remaury and J.Royer, "Region Parisienne,” 143-180, and finally Th. Leveau, "Istanbul,” 183-208, all in L’Œuvre de Henri Prost, Architecture et Urbanisme.

150 Dar AJen "La Reconstruction d’lstanbul", Journal d’Istanbul, 26.06.1953; A.Gabriel "H.Prost et le Nouveau Plan d’Istanbul”, Journal d’lstanbul, 9-13.01.1953; J.Gallatti "Un Grand Urbaniste Français, H.Prost”, Bulletin Officiel du Touring et Automobile de Turquie, February 1954; Jean Royer, "Henri Prost, Urbaniste”, Urbanisme, vol.34, issue 88,1954:2-31.

about his career, basically a b r o a d . O n 5 February 1975, UAcadémie d ’Architecture

and L’Association des Amis d ’Henri Prost celebrated his centenary, and a series of lectures were given to praise him, and Prost’s documents on Hagia Sophia were submitted to the then Turkish Ambassador in Paris.^®^

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Angel, an architect in Prost’s team in Istanbul, has written several articles on the urbaniste, concentrating on his planning approach.^®® In his first articles, Angel partly described Prost’s role and the main features of the first Master Plan. In his articles published in the Lettre d’information de l ’Observation urbain d ’ Istanbul, he gave detailed information of the planning and execution process of Prost’s Plan. These articles also revealed Prost’s team-based working style.

L ’Académie d’Architecture de Paris, possessing more than 500 notes on the rebuilding of Istanbul by Prost, encourages studies on the urbaniste from the mid-1980s: Pierre Pinon, a professor at the school of architecture at Paris VIII and Yerasimos, the former head of the Centre de Recherche sur les Etudes Anatolienne in Istanbul, are doing a research on the archives.^®^ Yerasimos was also the supervisor of a master thesis by Protsenko mentioned in the introduction.^®® Another master and doctoral studies were prepared by Cana Bilsel. Both DEA and doctoral study on urbanisation of Izmir described the Master Plan by René Danger in 1924, and reveals Prost’s role as an advisor in the planning.^®® She also compared Danger-Prost’s plan and Corbusier’s proposal for the city.^®^

Similarly, Le Centre de Recherche sur des Etudes Anatoiiennes at Galatasaray in Istanbul encourages studies on Istanbul and Prost. A detailed description of Prost’s Plan was given by an article entitled “Istanbul” (1987) where the maps described the best account of what really happened in the city.^®® Pinon’s article (1988) raised the

J. Çoyer "H. Prost, Nécrologie”, Urbanisme, issue 64, 1959 and "L’Urbaniste, H.Prost”, Urbanisme, issue 88, 1965; J. Carlu, "Hommage à Henri Prost”, L’Académie d’Architecture de Paris, 20.06.1959.

P.Dufoumet, ’’Hommage à Henri Prost”, Bulletin de L’Académie d’Architecture, issue 65,1975; no page number on the copies found at Le Centre de Recherche at Galatasaray.

Angel’s primary articles are: “Bûyük Mimar Prosfun Hal tercQmesi ve Eserleri,” lller ve Belediyeler Dergisi, issue 13, October 1946:505-507; ’’Henri Prost et le Premier Plan Directeur d’Istanbul,” L’Empire Ottoman, La République Turque et la France. Varia Turcica, III, 1986:561-577; its Turkish version ’’Henri Prost, Istanbul’un Ilk Nazim Plam”, Mimaiiik, issue 1,1987:34-39; “Projets et aménagements urbains à Istanbul de 1933 à nos jours,” issue 2,1992:2-4; and its second part in issue 3, December 1992:1-5; its third part in issue 4,1993:2-10; all in Lettre d’information de l’Observation urbain d’ Istanbul.

Information is given by the Centre de Recherche at Galatasaray-lstanbul. Protsenko, ’’Henri Prost et Istanbul.” 1988.

Bilsel, 1996a; her “La Reconstruction de la Ville de Izmir à la première moitié du XXe siede: Trois Projets d’Urbanisme et les Scenari de Modemisation.” DEA Thesis, the Paris-Belleville School of Architecture, 1993.

Bilsel, ’’Ideology and Urbanism during the early Republican Period: Two Master Plans for Izmir and Scenarios of Modemisation,” METU JFA, volume 16, issue: 1-2,1996b: 13-30.

A.Borie, P.Pinon, S.Yerasimos, and A.Yûcel, "Istanbul” Mimar, Bulletin d’information Architecturales, Institut Français d’Architecture, supplementary for the issue 115, (1987) 1996.

urban issues in the Golden Horn district of Istanbul/®® It gave controversial comments on the social and economic effects of the projects executed in the area, including the Prost Plan. The recent studies are again by French researchers in the mid-1990s. Apart from Auffret’s Istanbul, Fin de Siècle (1994) described in the introduction, Stoquart briefly describes Prost’s master plan for Istanbul (1996).^^° In the same year. Neuville, the French attache culturel of Istanbul, pays homage to the planner in the Prost exhibition booklet of 1996.

On colonies, an interesting architectural and urban analysis is done by Wright who describes Prost’s critical role at Rabat-Morocco (1994).^^^ Moreover, Çelik gives a detailed description of the Prost Plan for Algiers and makes a critical comparison with the un-executed Corbusian project in 1931, describing the urbaniste as the direct agent of the French government.

Apart from publications in French and English, in Turkey, the most controversial document on the Prost Plan is the report of “the Temporary Revision Committee,” a report that influenced Turkish scholars’ attitudes towards Prost after his departure in 1951. Although Chapter 5 will discuss the revision process in depth, a brief description of the report is given below. The committee criticised Prost for failing to project urban growth, and for making a partial plan based upon “the beautification of Istanbul.” The report claims that “the Prost plans were extremely superficial, based on the beautification and ornamentation of the city.”^^"* Furthermore, the revision committee criticised the plan for insufficient documentation. Most subsequent discussion of the Prost Plan in Turkey has followed this negative assessment. Members of the temporary and permanent revision committees, which consisted of Turkish experts continued to give lectures and write against the Prost Plan.^^®

Moreover, the academic influence of the group precipitated an atmosphere unfavourable to the plan in the various faculties of architecture in Istanbul. Prost’s role had no place in the courses given in their departments. There is only one book in the library of the Faculty of Architecture at ITU on Prost, and that is not about Istanbul but about the French colonies.

Pierre Pinon, "Table rase autour de la Come d’Or," Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, issue 256,1988, no page number on the copy.

Remi Stoquart, "Henri Prost, la Signature Française,” Urbanisme, issue 288,1996:13-15.

François Neuville, “Introduction" Penser la Ville, Créér la Ville, L’Œuvre d’Henri Prost à Istanbul, no page number. 1^2 Gwendoiyn Wright, “Rabat, Boulevard Muhammad V," Streets, Critical Perspectives on Public Space, Z.Çeiik, D.Favro and R.lngersoll, eds. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1994:225-234.

173 Çelik, 1997:40-41,49.

174 Revlzyon Komlsyonu Raporu prepared in September 1951; and published by the Istanbul Municipality in 1954. 175 Gûndüz Ôzdeç, Aru, interviews.

In later articles on the Turkish urbanisation process, Prost had a much more neutral criticism. Below, a selection of the writings by authors who have been influential as professors, urban historians and architects in the urban and architectural debate in Turkey is given.

As briefly described in the Introduction, Duranay’s article is one of the most thorough studies on the history of urban planning in Istanbul.However, it gives only the most basic explanation of the Prost plan and does not touch the role of the planner. It presents the master plan of 1937 as a conservation project. However, it seems quite satisfied to re-iterate the criticisms of the revision committee of 1951. In 1993, Cansever, the spokesman of the Chamber of Architects in the mid-1950s, gave a critical description of Prost’s Plan.^^^ He credits the French designer for his decisions concerning the height limitations at the historical peninsula of Istanbul. However, he is not satisfied with the spatial solutions that imposed 19*^ century Haussmanian boulevards upon the historical urban pattern of Istanbul.

Describing three imperial layers of the city (Byzantine, Ottoman and Republican), Kuban (1996) gives a broader account on Prost in the 1940s and is extremely critical against Menderes’s urban demolitions in the 1950s.^^® In the 1990s, he criticised Menderes’s works and demolitions, focusing on the rapid and crucial implementation of the revised Prost plan in the 1950s.^^® Apart from Kuban’s articles, Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, a critical and well-documented encyclopaedia on Istanbul, describes Prost’s plan in several articles, but again in chronological way (1994).^°°

75 Yilda Tdrk Mimarligi ve Kentle§me for the occasion of the 75^ anniversary of the Turkish Republic includes an article by Tapan, professor at ITU (1998).^®^ It is a very short summary of the urbanisation process in Istanbul in the late Ottoman period and the republican era, taken mainly from Duranay’s article of 1972. The structure is loose and his personal comments on this process are very weak, vague and un-satisfactory. And it does not open any crucial discussion over the Turkish modernisation, or the urban reconstruction of Istanbul.

These writings give a general description of the project and its implementation. They do not investigate the role of Henri Prost as an urbanists and his master plan in the

E l Duranay, 1972:65-118.

Turgut Cansever, “Ülke Ôlçeginde istanbul’u Planlamak” (planning Istanbul at the national scale), Istanbul, issue 3,1993:48-59.

ElKuban, Istanbul: An Urban History. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi, 1996.

Kuban, "Menderes ve Istanbul,” DQnden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, vol.5,1994:389-392; also “Menderes’de Batilila§tirma Kavrami” Istanbul Yazi/an, D.Kuban, ed. Istanbul: YEM, 1998a:230-233.

180 M.Rifat Akbulut, “Henri Prost”, 285-287; Kuban, “Metropolitan Istanbul,” (metropolitan Istanbul) 415-420; Suer, “Planlama” (planning), 265-275; all in Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi, 1994.

181 Tapan, 1998:77-80.

Turkish urbanisation process, nor its close correspondence with the secular ideology of the new republic.