SavedAdd your journal

Journals / TÜBA-KED Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Kültür Envanteri Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 33

A Comparative Study on the Reuse of the Kırklareli Railway Heritage: From Abandoned Space to Public Space

Kırklareli Demiryolu Mirasının Yeniden İşlevlendirilmesine Yönelik Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma: Atıl Alandan Kamusal Alana

Büşra Nur Dönmez(İSTANBUL SABAHATTİN ZAİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-9112-0562
Ahmet Kurnaz(İSTANBUL SABAHATTİN ZAİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9536-870X
Pages
197–224
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Through an analytical and comparative methodological approach, it adds an innovative perspective to the limited academic literature on railway heritage reuse.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Railway networks that emerged with the Industrial Revolution have played a significant role in cities’ economic, social, and spatial development.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Recently, conserving these areas and converting them into public green spaces has become essential to sustainable urban development strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Through an analytical and comparative methodological approach, it adds an innovative perspective to the limited academic literature on railway heritage reuse.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Demiryolu Mirası · Yeniden İşlevlendirme · Kamusal Park

Abstract

Railway networks that emerged with the Industrial Revolution have played a significant role in cities’ economic, social, and spatial development. However, with the proliferation of road transportation in the second half of the twentieth century, numerous railway lines globally became obsolete. Recently, conserving these areas and converting them into public green spaces has become essential to sustainable urban development strategies. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate railway heritage transformations comparatively, specifically through the case of Kırklareli, with successful examples, thus providing methodological and theoretical contributions to the literature. The research employs a multi-criteria assessment model developed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), considering fundamental criteria such as conservation and authenticity, socio-cultural value, spatial compatibility, environmental performance, accessibility, diversity of amenities, landscape quality, and economic sustainability. Informed by international literature, the findings emphasize the critical importance of preserving historical fabric, fostering social participation, implementing multi-dimensional spatial planning, and ensuring sustainable financial models for the success of such projects. The study provides actionable recommendations for policymakers and local administrations. Through an analytical and comparative methodological approach, it adds an innovative perspective to the limited academic literature on railway heritage reuse.

Özet

Sanayi devrimiyle birlikte ortaya çıkan demiryolu ağları, kentlerin ekonomik, sosyal ve mekânsal gelişiminde belirleyici rol oynamıştır. Ancak yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısında karayolu taşımacılığının yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte, dünya genelinde birçok demiryolu hattı atıl durumda kalmıştır. Son yıllarda bu alanların korunması ve kamusal yeşil alanlara dönüştürülmesi, sürdürülebilir kentleşme stratejilerinin önemli bir bileşeni haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Kırklareli Millet Bahçesi örneği üzerinden demiryolu mirası dönüşümlerini başarılı örneklerle karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmek ve literatüre metodolojik ve teorik açıdan katkı sağlamaktır. Araştırmada, Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yöntemiyle oluşturulan çok kriterli değerlendirme modeli kullanılmış; koruma ve otantiklik, sosyo-kültürel değer, mekânsal uygunluk, çevresel performans, erişilebilirlik, donatı çeşitliliği, peyzaj kalitesi ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik gibi temel kriterler ele alınmıştır. Uluslararası literatürden elde edilen bulgular ışığında, bu tür projelerin başarısında tarihî dokunun korunması, toplumsal katılım, çok boyutlu mekânsal planlama ve sürdürülebilir finans modellerinin önemine dikkat çekilmektedir. Araştırma, benzer dönüşüm projeleri için politika yapıcılar ve yerel yönetimler açısından rehber niteliğinde öneriler sunmaktadır. Ayrıca demiryolu mirasının yeniden işlevlendirilmesine dair sınırlı sayıdaki akademik çalışmalara, analitik ve karşılaştırmalı bir yöntem yaklaşımı ile yenilikçi bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dönmez, B. N., Kurnaz, A. (2026). A Comparative Study on the Reuse of the Kırklareli Railway Heritage: From Abandoned Space to Public Space. TÜBA-KED Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, Sayı: 33, 197–224. https://doi.org/10.22520/tubaked.1698028

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Kaynaklar Asabere, P. K. & Huffman, F. E. (2009). The relative impacts of trails and greenbelts on home price. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 38, 408-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9089-8
  2. Aydın, E. (2013). Assessment of urban renewal studies in the context of Florence’s old industrial sites. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 1(1), 41–56.
  3. Bandarin, F. & van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: Managing heritage in an urban century. Wiley-Blackwell.
  4. Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J. & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024
  5. Bianchi, A. & De Medici, S. (2023). A sustainable adaptive reuse management model for disused railway cultural heritage to boost local and regional competitiveness. Sustainability, 15(6), 5127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065127
  6. Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293–301.
  7. Bottero, M., Ferretti, V. & Mondini, G. (2015). How to support strategic decisions in territorial transformation processes. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), 6(4), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAEIS.2015100103
  8. Braae, E. (2015). Beauty redeemed: Recycling post-industrial landscapes. Ikaros Press.
  9. Brunton, J. (2017, June 7). A magical, green walk along Paris’s Promenade Plantée. The Guardian. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jun/07/paris-promenade-plantee-free-elevated-park-walkway-bastille-bois-de-vincennes adresinden alınmıştır.
  10. Bullen, P. A. & Love, P. E. (2011). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Structural Survey, 29(5), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630801111182439
  11. Carter, T., Harvey, D. C., Jones, R. & Robertson, I. J. (2020). Creating heritage. Routledge.
  12. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
  13. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
  14. David, J. & Hammond, R. (2011). High Line: The inside story of New York City’s park in the sky. FSG Originals.
  15. Douet, J. (2016). Industrial heritage re-tooled: The TICCIH guide to industrial heritage conservation. Routledge.
  16. Geyyas Gören, L. F. & Manisa, K. (2021). Demiryolu yapılarının kullanım dönüşümünde işlevsel olasılıklar ve yapısal müdahaleler. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, 6(3), 879–897. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.948751
  17. Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R. & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115
  18. Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J. & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(2), 90–98.
  19. Gould, K. A. & Lewis, T. L. (2016). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687322
  20. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S. & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207-228.
  21. Heathcott, J. (2013). The promenade plantée: Politics, planning, and urban design in postindustrial Paris. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(3), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13487927
  22. Hein, C. (2011). Port cities: Dynamic landscapes and global networks. Routledge.
  23. ICOMOS. (1964). The Venice Charter.
  24. ICOMOS. (2011). The Dublin Principles: Joint ICOMOS-TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes.
  25. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M. D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J.,. & Thompson, C. W. (2009). Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001
  26. Jennings, V., Larson, L. & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space: Cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International Journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020196
  27. Kabisch, N. & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
  28. Kellett, J. R. (2014). The impact of railways on Victorian cities. Routledge.
  29. Kırklareli Envanteri. (t.y.). Kırklareli İstasyon Binası. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://kirklarelienvanteri.gov.tr/kirklareli-istasyon-binasi-269 adresinden alınmıştır.
  30. Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L. & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner‐city neighborhood common spaces. American journal of community psychology, 26(6), 823-851. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022294028903
  31. La Librería. (2010, 3 Kasım). La estación de Atocha. Ediciones La Librería. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://edicioneslalibreria.com/la-estacion-de-atocha/ adresinden alınmıştır.
  32. Langston, C., Wong, F. K., Hui, E. C. & Shen, L. Y. (2008). Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Building and environment, 43(10), 1709-1718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.017
  33. Littke, H., Locke, R. & Haas, T. (2015). Taking the High Line: elevated parks, transforming neighbourhoods, and the ever-changing relationship between the urban and nature. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(4), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1063532
  34. Loughran, K. (2014). Parks for profit: The high line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City & Community, 13(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12050
  35. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Brozen, M. & Levy-Storms, L. (2014). Placemaking for an aging population: Guidelines for senior-friendly parks. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://escholarship.org/content/qt450871hz/qt450871hz.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
  36. Loures, L. U. I. S. & Crawford, P. (2008, June). Finding public consensus: The relevance of public participation in post-industrial landscape reclamation. Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS International Conference on Landscape Architecture, Algarve, Portugal (s. 117-122) içinde.
  37. Loures, L. (2015). Post-industrial landscapes as drivers for urban redevelopment: Public versus expert perspectives towards the benefits and barriers of the reuse of post-industrial sites in urban areas. Habitat International, 45, 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.028
  38. Millington, N. (2015). From urban scar to park in the sky: Terrain vague, urban design, and the remaking of New York City’s High Line Park. Environment and Planning A, 47(11), 2324-2338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15599294
  39. Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E. & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3–4), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
  40. Pedata, L., Altamura, P. & Rossi, L. (2024). Turning heritage railway architecture into an infrastructure for resilience and circularity: An opportunity for sustainable urban regeneration. A. Battisti & S. Baiani (Ed.), ETHICS: Endorse technologies for heritage innovation (s. 329–359) içinde. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50121-0_20
  41. Pendlebury, J., Townshend, T. & Gilroy, R. (2016). Social housing as heritage: The case of Byker, Newcastle upon Tyne. Valuing historic environments (s. 179-200) içinde. Routledge.
  42. Plevoets, B. & Van Cleempoel, K. (2011). Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of cultural heritage. Literature Review, WIT Transaction on The Built Environment, 188, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.2495/STR110131
  43. Plevoets, B. & Van Cleempoel, K. (2019). Adaptive reuse of built heritage: Concepts and cases of an emerging discipline. Routledge.
  44. Quattrone, M., Tomaselli, G., D’Emilio, A. & Russo, P. (2018). Analysis and evaluation of abandoned railways aimed at greenway conversion: A methodological application in the Sicilian landscape using multi-criteria analysis and geographical information system. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 49(3), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2018.744
  45. Rachdan, S. (2021). Post-industrial revitalisation of railway stations: The path to commercialisation. S. Mitra, S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Roy, & T. Ponce Dentinho (Ed.), Railway transportation in South Asia (s. 7–22) içinde. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76878-2_2
  46. Rbb-Online. (t.y.). Der Anhalter Bahnhof. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://www.rbb-online.de/geheimnisvolle_orte/videos/der-anhalter-bahnhof.html adresinden alınmıştır.
  47. Richards, J. & MacKenzie, J. M. (1986). The Railway Station: A social history. Oxford University Press.
  48. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
  49. Shipley, R., Utz, S. & Parsons, M. (2006). Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of building renovation in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(6), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600940181
  50. SoPHIA. (2021). Social platform for holistic heritage impact assessment: Final model. European Commission, Horizon 2020 Project. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://sophiaplatform.eu/ adresinden alınmıştır.
  51. Stratford, E. (2009). Belonging as a resource: The case of Ralphs Bay, Tasmania, and the local politics of place. Environment and Planning A, 41(4), 796-810. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40198
  52. T24. (2017, 11 Ekim). İstanbul banliyö hatları 2018’de açılıyor! 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://t24.com.tr/haber/istanbul-banliyo-hatlari-2018de-aciliyor,462284 adresinden alınmıştır.
  53. The High Line. (t.y.). The High Line. 5 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://www.thehighline.org/ adresinden alınmıştır.
  54. TICCIH. (2003). The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage.
  55. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
  56. UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  57. Uzun, T. İ. & Zein El Abidin, M. (2017). Hicaz Demiryolu Genel Müdürlük binası / Hicâz Demiryolu Müdiriyyet-i ‘Umûmiyyesi Binası Projesi özgün çizimleri üzerinden bir okuma. MEGARON, 12(4), 572–588. https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.23865
  58. Uzun, T. & Karabeyeser, M. (2018). Gaziantep Tren Garı ve yeniden işlevlendirme önerileri üzerine bir değerlendirme. FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 12, 309-347. https://doi.org/10.16947/fsmia.502864
  59. Wong, L. (2024). Adaptive reuse: extending the lives of buildings. Birkhäuser.
  60. Xie, P. F. (2006). Developing industrial heritage tourism: A case study of the proposed jeep museum in Toledo, Ohio. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1321-1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.010
  61. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.
  62. Yung, E. H. K. & Chan, E. H. W. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36(3), 352-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001
  63. Zeitbrueche. (t.y.). Fragmente mit Strahlkraft, Anhalter Bahnhof Berlin. 15 Ocak 2026 tarihinde https://www.zeitbrueche.de/anhalter-bahnhof.html adresinden alınmıştır.
  64. Zhang, C., Dai, S. & Xia, H. (2020). Reuse of abandoned railways leads to urban regeneration: A tale from a rust track to a green corridor in Zhangjiakou. Urban Rail Transit, 6, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40864-020-00127-2
  65. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M. D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J.,. & Thompson, C. W. (2009). Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001