This paper examines the conservation master plan prepared for in Beyoglu, Istanbul’s Galata Persembe Bazaar waterfront and its Genoese and Ottoman port heritage. This paper initially contains an analytical perspective. This perspective informs the analyses of the evolution of planning process on the conservation of the port heritage. The results of relations between port heritage and conservation planning works have come up for discussion. Spatial interventions on the Persembe Bazaar waterfront began in the 1980s by removing industrial and commercial buildings in the area. These interventions, made in the framework of wiping away the Halic (Golden Horn) waterfront created pressure for urban regeneration in areas with historical and cultural heritage assets like Persembe Bazaar. Major projects such as Galataport and Halicport on the waterfronts of the Halic and the Bosphorus have increased this pressure. Huge functional transformations on the waterfront are desired along with the Persembe Bazaar Conservation Master Plan, which conforms neither to the content nor the context of general conservation principles or Turkey’s conservation legislation. Its content includes no interventions compatible with the theme of “living in harbour cities” and should thus be criticized. The conservation of the tangible and intangible heritage of historical port features, the preservation and development of the service sector and trade in the area requires adopting a holistic understanding of conservation and taking historical features into account. Such an important port heritage site should not be seen as having only touristic functions. It should emphasize more local features for their daily use of local residents and businesses.
According to the Grant Map of the Ministry of Development (MoD) as of March-April 2017, there were 1716 urban regeneration (revitalization) projects implemented in Poland between 2007-2013. Data from 11 voivodeships (out of 16 regions NUTS 2 in Poland) and 977 projects was sufficient to provide a representative sample (56,9% of projects presented in the Grant Map). The main methods used in the article included observation and review of MoD statistical data and literature on the subject. As observed by the author, between 2007-2013 the definition of urban regeneration (revitalization) was only mentioned in one of the footnotes to the housing guidelines, which was a poor legal basis for the regional managing authorities. Similarly, there was no solid basis in the strategic documents (national) for that period: they did not provide any definition of revitalization. It was in the interest of the beneficiaries, as well as – partly – in the interest of those managing authorities to satisfy the local needs, especially those needs which were not considered the result of the shift to the post-industrial era, but rather as a result of numerous institutional and political events. Due to these features, the period 2007-2013 was dominated by infrastructure projects aimed at the quality of life but also efficient in terms of spending European money. It seems that there was an agreement between regional managing authorities and the benefi ciaries (potential voters) as to the way of spending the revitalization funding. This was understood differently at national level, but because institutions at this level were not involved directly in the urban regeneration (revitalization), their influence on regional units was minor. Even more so because the managing authorities were also interested in speeding up the process of spending European resources.