1. The development of the area

“And the extra muros area is the ‘exofanaron’ (outside lighthouse)”. With this phrase professor Athanasios Papas¹ concludes his reference to Gedeon in his study about the significance of the location of Fanari (Fener), before the transfer there of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the beginning of the 17^th century.² His wording attests to town planning terms, relevant to the formation of urban centres in the Middle Ages. From the late 15^th century, urban space was not completely walled and was greatly autonomous compared to the surrounding countryside. The local division of Byzantine urban centres to “castro (castle)-chora (city)-exochora (countryside)” remained as the main characteristic of town planning during the following period as well.

In many cases of cities, depending on their strategic geographical location or the special circumstances under which they had been conquered, the respective town areas of the castle, the walled city and the countryside outside the city walls correlated to a specific national-religious distinction; in Rhodes and Nicosia, for example, after 1492 Jews were located outside the city walls. The same practice was not implemented in Constantinople, since Sephardic Jews resided in the area of Balata (Balat) –an extra muros district to the northwest of Fanari (Fener)– while Greco-phone Romaniots and Turco-phone Karaites, who constituted the older Jewish inhabitants of Byzantium, were located in Galata.

We shall risk a hypothesis, by arguing that the “Castro of Petries” (Castle of Stones),³ as M. Nomides records the walled district, became the place of resettlement for the Patriarchate not only because of the location there of a monastery and small church –later known as Agios Georgios (St George)– but also due to the presence of a great number of estates and buildings; these could house the upper clergy and dignitaries of the Greek-Orthodox community with relevant safety. The area was initially named Fanari (Fener), while “exophanaron” (outside lighthouse) was a strip of land between the shore of the Golden Horn and the city walls. There, later on during the 18^th century, the infamous kiargirs (kârgir) were built, the imposing stone mansions of Phanariots. These buildings were influenced externally by the later phase of Ottoman architecture known as “the Tulip Period” and internally by the turco-baroque decoration, on which we shall comment further down. “Here lay spacious and elegant houses, separated from the walls by a wide street, and most of them extending to the sea shore, where many people also built small summer cabins close to the docks of their houses […]. Save the buildings by the sea-side belonging to upper clergymen and illustrious Phanariots, most of the rest are small and many of them very gloomy.”⁴

Until the middle of the 19^th century, Phanariots inhabited the shore strip, while lower strata populated the parishes of Mouchlion and Potiras. ”Mouchlion lies southwest of Fanari (Fener) and is called Kiremit Mahallesiin Turkish” records the Journal of the National Charity Establishments (Ethnika Philanthropika Katastimata) of 1906.⁵ These two parishes from 1898 jointly operated a school, the United School of Mouchlion-Potiras; so, they essentially comprised a united district, even though the Urban All-Boys’ School with its 220 students was located in the former neighbourhood and the 200-strong Nursery and All-Girls School in the latter. Regarding the “Marasleio” School, it was founded in 1905 beside the Patriarchate, in order to meet the needs of the population residing by the shore.

It is impossible to exactly pinpoint the location of Fanari (Fener), since it does not correspond to any administrative division of the Fatih Municipality, under whose jurisdiction it falls under nor comprises a single district. A. Papas mentions, referencing the 35-year-old encyclopedia İstanbul Ansiklopedisi,⁶ that nowadays the area consists of the Abdi Subaşı and Talimhane districts, as well as parts of the Kasım Günani, Katip Muslihidin, Mola Aşkî, Hızır Çavuş and Tefki-i Cafer districts. Obviously, an accurate description of urban development must take under consideration the time the large buildings complexes were planned and constructed outside Petrion, as well as the exact location of fire zones. Thanks to bibliographical sources, it is known that from the 17^th century onwards the Fanari (Fener) area often suffered from fires; the most destructive and dangerous ones for the current state of the urban plexus are: the one of July 24^th 1911, when the central area of Balata (Balat) was burned down and, consequently, re-planned from scratch with a new rectangular building grid; the 1918 one in Cibali.⁷

2. Greek-Orthodox population

The communal public buildings of Fanari (Fener), such as the Great School of the Nation, the “Ioakeimeio” Girls’ School and the “Marasleio” School, had their effect –with their imposing size and location– on the image of the surrounding area transforming it into a religious and intellectual centre for the Greeks in Constantinople; as recorded by the ΜΕΕencyclopedia,⁸ “its name became synonymous with the Greek-Orthodox Church and its politics”. Towards the end of the 19^th century, however, most of its inhabitants migrated to the opposite shore of the Golden Horn, so Fanari (Fener) remained only as the See of religious administration. From the late 1880s the infamous “aristocracy of Constantinople” did no longer reside in Fanari (Fener).⁹ Manouil Gedeon calls the old Phanariots as “the phalanx of Greek in origin or Greek-educated aristocracy” (his inverted commas) that had come apart and scattered in 1821, but “reformed again and, having assumed new attributes, showed great qualities in administrative prudence and political experience until sixty or sixty-five years ago, while residing in Fanari (Fener),”¹⁰ i.e. until 1860-1865. He obviously refers to neo-Phanariots, “these post-1821 Phanariots having left Fanari (Fener) and visiting it from afar”, that had selected Stavrodromi (Crossroads, or Pera/Beyoğlu) or the Greek villages on Bosporus as their place of residence.

It is certain that after the Fall of Constantinople this district was inhabited by Greek-Orthodox population. The only reference to the residents of this district is found in the 16^th century tax records, where it is mentioned that the area was divided into four districts: the Porte of Fanari (Fener), the Fanari (Fener) Cinboz district (Mahalle-i Fanar-i Cinboz), the Kulikarpe district (Mahalle-i Kulikarpe) and the Savanofros district (Mahalle-i Savanofros). The Porte of Fanari (Fener) district was inhabited by fishermen.¹¹ 195 families in total populated the area, 42 of which originated from Trabzon, 26 from Palaia Phokaia (Old Phocaea), 15 from Mytilene and 45 were fishermen.¹²

Consequently, only an approximate number of Greek inhabitants is available for Fanari (Fener) during the late 19^th century. According to the 1885 census for the 10 municipal regions of the greater capital, the number of Greeks inhabiting the Fatih region amounted to 24,270 out of a total of 114,545, namely 21%.¹³

Greeks were thus divided into parishes in the Archdiocese of Constantinople (according to a undated catalogue of the Greek Embassy, possibly based on statistical data gathered by the Greek-Orthodox religious authorities at the beginning of 1907); the population is, on the one hand, recorded by families (the unmarried in parentheses) and on other hand, based on a different estimate, by absolute numbers:

Fanari (Fener)): 650 families (220 unmarried), 10,000 residents

Mouchlionn: 170 families (10 unmarried), 5,000 residents

Potiras: 140 families (100 unmarried), 2,000 residents

Cibali: 500 families (1,500 unmarried), 2,000 residents

Balata (Balat): 300 families (50 unmarried), 2,000 residents

Balinou: 120 families (50 unmarried), 2,000 residents

Xyloporta (Lonca/Ayvansaray): 200 families (40 unmarried), 2,000 residents

TOTAL: 2,080 families (1,970 unmarried), 25,000 residents¹⁴

The estimation of 25,000 residents, however, seems like a rather unreal number. Besides that, the Fatih region also included the Sarmasik (2,000), Top Kapı (1,500), Salmatobruk (1,500), Tekfur Sarayı (1.500), Adrianoupolis Gate/Gate of Edirne (Edirne Kapu) (3,000) and Eğri Kapu (2,000) parishes, which raises the total Greek population to 36,500 residents.

After 1923 Fanari (Fener) lost its Greek character due to the location of many Turkish refugees there. Just to compare, we should mention that during the 1950s the remaining 960 families were reduced to 614.¹⁵ If we accept an estimated number of 5 or 6 members per family, it results to a population of about 3,000-3,500. Nowadays, very few people of Greek origin permanently reside in Fanari (Fener).

3. Fires and reconstruction

During the 19^th century no serious damage is recorded in Fener due to fires. On April 12^th 1861 a great fire in Kiremit Mahallesi destroyed 300 houses. Despite the efforts of the fire-fighters (tulumbacilar), the flames reached as far as the Çarşamba Bazaar. The event that will define the image of the Patriarchate for the following 5 years, however, is the fire that on September 21^st 1941 burned down all the wooden buildings located along the southern wall, where the monks’ cells were, the coadjutor’s quarters and the patriarchal rooms. Only the tower, the library, the building of the Mixed Council and the “Evgenideion” were spared. Even the stone building above the kitchens lost its wooden parts because of the fire.¹⁶ Professor and architect Aristides Pasadaios designed the new buildings after having acquired a permit in 1987; thanks to a donation by Panagiotis Angelopoulos, nowadays at the spot stands a complete building complex, which is barely different morphology-wise to the buildings originally constructed by the Patriarch Joachim III in 1879, upon plans produced by S. Chrestides. That was not the first time that the Patriarchate burned down. In 1712, the Fener and Petri Kapı district caught fire, “incinerating both the Patriarchal and the Great Church, which was radically reconstructed by the Patriarch Jeremiah III in the year 1720”¹⁷; similar incidents are continually recorded. It is not within our intentions, however, to analyze the architectural characteristics of the Patriarchate and the Agios Georgios (St George) church. We hold, however, that we should mention and document the development of this building complex by the late Aristides Pasadaios. The most important thing one should mote is that the characteristics of each patriarchal building preserve specimens of the multiple architectural rhythms implemented in Fener and the whole of Constantinople at different times; from the stone tower housing the archives and the library to the neo-classical “Evgenideion” building that accommodated the rooms of the Patriarch.

4. Industrial modernization

From the 19^th century inwards, attempts to industrially modernize and create a western-style urban centre are recorded along the shores of Fener. In 1834 a rolling mill is created in the shipyard, benefiting from the operation of the first steam-engine. In 1835 a forge, a foundry and a saw mill/wood workshop also operate thanks to steam power. In 1887 an iron casting kiln is built, thus commencing the manufacturing of forming blocks. In 1827 in Eyüp a factory manufacturing hawers and ship-ropes and later on a factory manufacturing fez hats; an abattoir was located in Sütlüce and a company dealing in tobacco (Rezi) was located in Cibali. Gradually, the shore zone was used for storage purposes, while residencies were transferred to the intra muros area. During the 1930, the Municipality called the architect and urban planner Henri Prost from France to deal with the situation that had occurred after the proclamation of Ankara as the new state capital. Prost suggested the translocation of workshops in the northwest shore of the Golden Horn.

In 1984 under the tenure of Mayor Dalan and part of the project to preserve the Golden Horn, its southwest shore was transformed into an amusement and recreational park. All the industrial buildings were demolished and a green zone was created. According to Η. Sezgin, professor in the history of architecture, 3 or 4 Phanariot houses were destroyed during the completion of this project,¹⁸ but around 10 were preserved. We believe that more buildings were destroyed eventually and not only 18^th-century ones. In any case, their style was irreparably altered and the cost of their restoration was immense, which is also the case for the popular neo-classical buildings of Fener.

5. Residential architecture

Houses at the time were constructed with wood. Phanariot mansions, however, were heavy stone constructions, built according to the stone-enclosed style of masonry. The height of stone array was about 20 to 30 cm, comprised of a Thracian limestone called kefeki or küfeki. The dimensions of the bricks were uneven, their width varied from 3.5 to 4 cm and their length from 22 to 35 cm. As far as their ground plan is concerned, they resemble the one-room Ottoman buildings housing libraries and the Qur'an study halls (Darülkurra) of public schools. The main space maintained the same system of traditional spatial arrangement used in the previous centuries, from the 15^th to the 18^th, while the same elements are evident at the Caravan serays and medreses. The principal rooms of these buildings are square or rectangular in shape. The chimney is fitted into one of the main axes. Before entering the room lays an auxiliary space like a hall called sofa after entering the room, one comes upon a semi-closed space like an antechamber nominally separated by the principal space by two slim columns. Its floor is elevated by a step. These special characteristics were maintained at the construction of wooden houses during the Ottoman period. As in the rest of the residents, there are few openings facing the street and almost everything takes place on the last floor. Windows are fitted in well-made sashes and have acute arcs to relieve the weight or stone transoms. Nothing special appeared on the outside.

It is worthy to cite Thomas Hopp, an Englishman who served Nikolaos Mavrogenis during the second half of the 18^th century. “My surprise became even greater when I saw that we disembarked upon a sordid quayside and followed a narrow and filthy road. My surprise peaked, however, when we reached a house that, painted on the outside with a deep ash-gray colour that appeared to be collapsing of age because they could not repair it, and we were told that this was the house of my master Mavrogenis […]. This awful ash-grey colour and the outside impression of monotonous decadence, shared by all palaces in Fener, with no exceptions, hid behind it rooms furnished with all the luxury of eastern splendour. Persian rugs lay on all floors. Venetian velvets decorated the walls. Golden nets adorned the roofs. And precious incenses burned and fragranced from silver containers. In other words, I observed that the humble external appearance was only superficial. Inside, their houses are heavily laden with rich furs and valuable covers (shawls), artifacts and jewels of every kind. And when they leave their houses, the wear garments made of coarse fabrics in dark colours”.¹⁹

On the ground and first floors the servants resided, while higher floors had overhangs supported by stone brackets. Traditional Ottoman houses included closed verandas, called hayat or sun lounges. The same layout with the addition of a staircase applied to the houses in Fener. These constructions are dated after the Fall the Constantinople, because pre-Fall no buildings existed outside the sea wall. The first houses are pictured in the 16^th century map of Matrakçı Nasuh. The way they were built, however, has been influenced by the Byzantine residences, even though overhangs of great length are rare to come upon. Professor Nikos Moutsopoulos²⁰ regards the overhangs in the Fener houses as a distant echo of respective overhangs dating back to the Late Byzantine period, without fully documenting his opinion however. He probably bases his theory on the Dedications of the Conqueror (Fatih Vakfiyeleri), where it is stated that: “In the holy oblations (of the Conqueror) another 35 houses built on the shore, are included. They are located outside the castles. These houses we mention are known with the name Balıklık. They lay opposite the Gate of Cibali, Gate of the Hunter. These houses are separated from the castles by the public road.”²¹

Professor Η. Sezgin,²² on the other hand, although accepting that the distinctiveness in the way the houses were built pertain to earlier periods, also stresses the distinct differences in decoration, which is influenced by the turco-baroque style of the second half of the 18^th century. If today these old mansions are in need of protection and some of them are reconstructed, the remnants of the vast building complex (Seray) belonging to Demetrius Cantemir should not be overlooked; in ruins nowadays due to proprietorship issues, it still serves as a reminder of former glories.

An old Constantinopolitan about 60 years ago had accurately foreseen the future: “Town-planning can not be accompanied with hesitations. It pushes forward to present a new city upon its old self and in co-ordinance with contemporary needs in life; the exact same process as when the current city was built upon the ruins of the city-state of Byzantium. Its sea walls were of no archeological importance according to the Urban Planning Services. Its grounds were needed for heavy industry. Hence began the demolition of the old buildings.”²³ Nowadays industry has also died out in the area; it has been replaced by a park, in order to meet the multiple needs of a population gasping for breath in the remaining houses of a district under clearance.