Debates, hassles on decades old bridge
Güncelleme Tarihi:
by Yaşar Durukan - TEMPO Magazine
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Kasım 17, 2008 00:00
As the debate over a third bridge spanning the Bosphorus strait rages, Turkey is reminded of the earlier arguments over the previous two bridges. The construction of the first Bosphorus Bridge, located between Ortaköy on the European side and Beylerbeyi on the Asian side, was debated for decades before the first screw was in place. The second bridge spanning the strait met considerably less resistance, but still faced its share of criticism.
Istanbul traffic has been a mess for quite some time. This megacity's roads cannot carry the load of the 10 million vehicles that drive around daily. Especially the traffic on the two bridges linking Europe and Asia frustrate drivers throughout the day, which is why the third bridge project has been on the table for quite some time.
However, differences in opinion have reached a zenith due to the warnings of some environmentalists and the reactions of some local residents.
Is a new bridge really necessary? If it is, what is the most appropriate route? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan forcefully ended the debate saying, "We will make a third bridge." To those against the bridge he scolded them saying, "They were against the first bridge as well. Now they use it. Why don't you cross on a ferry instead?"
The Bosphorus' golden gate
Erdoğan is right in saying that there was opposition to the first bridge as well. This is a very old debate. The first time the idea of crossing the Bosphorus by bridge appeared during the Republican era was in 1931 by Nuri Demirağ. Demirağ had asked Bethlehem Steel Company, which had constructed San Fransisco's famous Golden Gate Bridge, to design a project. According to the blueprints, the bridge would have been between Ahırkapı and Üsküdar's Doğancılar district at a length of 2.5 kilometers.
Demirağ's project was shelved by the administration in 1940, which claimed, "There can be no bridge over the Bosphorus, it would collapse." With his hopes dashed, Demirağ left the Ministry saying, "This will be done, Istanbul needs it. If I don't do it, I will leave it to my son, he'll do it in my name. And my last request will be a plaque on the bridge which says 'Neither İnönü nor Çetinkaya (the Minister of Public Works) may pass.'" Demirağ was never able to realize his dream of a bridge in his lifetime, he was unable to leave his will regarding İsmet İnönü and Ali Çetinkaya.
Another project that was never realized came about in 1951. Professor Paul Bonatz of Istanbul Technical University and the German Krupp firm presented a study which found the route between Beylerbeyi and Ortaköy ideal, which is where the legs of the first bridge stand.
The idea to connect Asia and Europe by bridge began to interest the government from 1953 on. In 1958, the German firm Dyckerhof und Widemann came knocking on the administration's door with a new proposal. As the proposals and projects were being looked over, the military coup in 1960 put the bridge projects on hold. The only project that came to life was the one by British firm Freeman, Fox and Partners, which was presented in 1967. An agreement was made with German Hochtief A.G. and British Clevelan Bridge and Eng. Co.
The project was put up for tender, but the debate amongst the public never quieted down. Generally, the supporters of right-wing parties were for the bridge, whereas the supporters of the left-wing parties were against, with İlhan Selçuk one of the most vocal critics. Today, Selçuk is being tried in court, along with several others, over involvement in the Ergenekon network, an organization that is allegedly plotting to create an atmosphere of chaos that would spur a military coup and in turn topple the government.
Frivolous and useless
From the Republican People's Party, or CHP, and the Turkish Worker's Party, or TİP, to the members of architecture and engineering chambers and student organizations all found the bridge frivolous and useless.
Speaking on behalf of the CHP, the late former prime minister, Bülent Ecevit, had said, "Before you try to build a suspension bridge over Istanbul, we should be trying to provide employment and job opportunities for 38 percent of villagers." TİP was out on the streets distributing flyers that read, "30 million of us are starving, and the bridge won't feed us." According to TİP's calculations, the money to be spent on the bridge could build enough factories to employ 20 thousand workers, residencies for 15 thousand three child families could be built, and Istanbul’s water troubles could be solved.
In addition, without the development of public transportation systems, there would be a 'bridge trap' where every bridge would be the reason for another one. Thus, they were suggesting an aerial "monorail" or a subway system as an alternative. Süleyman Demirel prime minister of the time, called the bridge's opponents "Istanbul-haters." The bridge's supporters said this historic project would add 14.7 percent efficiency to the economy. The debate had spread throughout Turkey, even becoming a topic for artists and entertainers.
Actually, underneath the government’s insistence on building the bridge lay Turkey's desire to prove it was a modern country. The Bosphorus Bridge would be a monument of pride for a less developed country. So it had to be constructed.
With the never-ending debates still raging, the bridge entered the Ministry of Public Work's budget in 1968. It became part of the second five-year plan. Bosphorus bridge agreement was signed in a ceremony attended by Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel. What he said during the ceremony captures what is going on today: "You will see, in one or two decades this facility will not be enough either, once we have tasted this we will begin seeking new opportunities to cross the Bosphorus."
On February 20, thousands of citizens attended the ground breaking ceremony. President Cevdet Sunay and Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel opened the gates amidst artillery fire and ferry horns. A 60 kuruş stamp was printed in honor of that day. Months later, Cevdet Sunay visited the construction site as it neared completion. He stayed on the bridge for an hour where he welded and drank tea with the workers at 165 meters.
Bosphorus' "second necklace"
The official opening of the bridge took place on October 29 1973. The following day in a ceremony attended by 10 thousands of citizens, President Fahri Korutürk and Prime Minister Naim Talu opened the bridge for service. President Korutürk was followed by the tens of thousands of citizens in crossing the bridge.
With traffic increasing at a much higher rate than expected, calculations suggested the bridge would reach its maximum capacity in 1980, and a feasibility study for a second bridge began in 1976.
The Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge was for some the Bosphorus' "second necklace," and for some it's "second handcuff." Even if it was delayed due to economic reasons, its construction began in 1986, and was opened for service by Prime Minister Turgut Özal in 1988. The people who had opposed both bridges turned out to be partially right.
However, differences in opinion have reached a zenith due to the warnings of some environmentalists and the reactions of some local residents.
Is a new bridge really necessary? If it is, what is the most appropriate route? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan forcefully ended the debate saying, "We will make a third bridge." To those against the bridge he scolded them saying, "They were against the first bridge as well. Now they use it. Why don't you cross on a ferry instead?"
The Bosphorus' golden gate
Erdoğan is right in saying that there was opposition to the first bridge as well. This is a very old debate. The first time the idea of crossing the Bosphorus by bridge appeared during the Republican era was in 1931 by Nuri Demirağ. Demirağ had asked Bethlehem Steel Company, which had constructed San Fransisco's famous Golden Gate Bridge, to design a project. According to the blueprints, the bridge would have been between Ahırkapı and Üsküdar's Doğancılar district at a length of 2.5 kilometers.
Demirağ's project was shelved by the administration in 1940, which claimed, "There can be no bridge over the Bosphorus, it would collapse." With his hopes dashed, Demirağ left the Ministry saying, "This will be done, Istanbul needs it. If I don't do it, I will leave it to my son, he'll do it in my name. And my last request will be a plaque on the bridge which says 'Neither İnönü nor Çetinkaya (the Minister of Public Works) may pass.'" Demirağ was never able to realize his dream of a bridge in his lifetime, he was unable to leave his will regarding İsmet İnönü and Ali Çetinkaya.
Another project that was never realized came about in 1951. Professor Paul Bonatz of Istanbul Technical University and the German Krupp firm presented a study which found the route between Beylerbeyi and Ortaköy ideal, which is where the legs of the first bridge stand.
The idea to connect Asia and Europe by bridge began to interest the government from 1953 on. In 1958, the German firm Dyckerhof und Widemann came knocking on the administration's door with a new proposal. As the proposals and projects were being looked over, the military coup in 1960 put the bridge projects on hold. The only project that came to life was the one by British firm Freeman, Fox and Partners, which was presented in 1967. An agreement was made with German Hochtief A.G. and British Clevelan Bridge and Eng. Co.
The project was put up for tender, but the debate amongst the public never quieted down. Generally, the supporters of right-wing parties were for the bridge, whereas the supporters of the left-wing parties were against, with İlhan Selçuk one of the most vocal critics. Today, Selçuk is being tried in court, along with several others, over involvement in the Ergenekon network, an organization that is allegedly plotting to create an atmosphere of chaos that would spur a military coup and in turn topple the government.
Frivolous and useless
From the Republican People's Party, or CHP, and the Turkish Worker's Party, or TİP, to the members of architecture and engineering chambers and student organizations all found the bridge frivolous and useless.
Speaking on behalf of the CHP, the late former prime minister, Bülent Ecevit, had said, "Before you try to build a suspension bridge over Istanbul, we should be trying to provide employment and job opportunities for 38 percent of villagers." TİP was out on the streets distributing flyers that read, "30 million of us are starving, and the bridge won't feed us." According to TİP's calculations, the money to be spent on the bridge could build enough factories to employ 20 thousand workers, residencies for 15 thousand three child families could be built, and Istanbul’s water troubles could be solved.
In addition, without the development of public transportation systems, there would be a 'bridge trap' where every bridge would be the reason for another one. Thus, they were suggesting an aerial "monorail" or a subway system as an alternative. Süleyman Demirel prime minister of the time, called the bridge's opponents "Istanbul-haters." The bridge's supporters said this historic project would add 14.7 percent efficiency to the economy. The debate had spread throughout Turkey, even becoming a topic for artists and entertainers.
Actually, underneath the government’s insistence on building the bridge lay Turkey's desire to prove it was a modern country. The Bosphorus Bridge would be a monument of pride for a less developed country. So it had to be constructed.
With the never-ending debates still raging, the bridge entered the Ministry of Public Work's budget in 1968. It became part of the second five-year plan. Bosphorus bridge agreement was signed in a ceremony attended by Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel. What he said during the ceremony captures what is going on today: "You will see, in one or two decades this facility will not be enough either, once we have tasted this we will begin seeking new opportunities to cross the Bosphorus."
On February 20, thousands of citizens attended the ground breaking ceremony. President Cevdet Sunay and Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel opened the gates amidst artillery fire and ferry horns. A 60 kuruş stamp was printed in honor of that day. Months later, Cevdet Sunay visited the construction site as it neared completion. He stayed on the bridge for an hour where he welded and drank tea with the workers at 165 meters.
Bosphorus' "second necklace"
The official opening of the bridge took place on October 29 1973. The following day in a ceremony attended by 10 thousands of citizens, President Fahri Korutürk and Prime Minister Naim Talu opened the bridge for service. President Korutürk was followed by the tens of thousands of citizens in crossing the bridge.
With traffic increasing at a much higher rate than expected, calculations suggested the bridge would reach its maximum capacity in 1980, and a feasibility study for a second bridge began in 1976.
The Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge was for some the Bosphorus' "second necklace," and for some it's "second handcuff." Even if it was delayed due to economic reasons, its construction began in 1986, and was opened for service by Prime Minister Turgut Özal in 1988. The people who had opposed both bridges turned out to be partially right.