The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 Ankara Commuter Line as the Product and Witness of Modern Planning Experience in Turkey Selin Çavdar Sert*, Funda Baş Bütüner**, Ela Alanyalı Aral** * PhD, Gaziantep University, Department of City and Regional Planning, selin.cavdar@gmail.com ** PhD, Middle East Technical University, Department of Architecture, fbutuner@metu.edu.tr ** Assoc.Prof.,Middle East Technical University, Department of Architecture, earal@metu.edu.tr Evolution of commuter rail transit systems has always served a tight relationship with the development of urban planning theory and practice. Commuter rail development in Ankara has a peculiar history begun with the pronunciation of Ankara as the capital city of the new regime in 1923, as opposed to its numerous contemporaries which had emerged as the lasting effects of Industrial Revolution on cities. In the earlier plans representing the culturalist school of spatial organization, Ankara commuter line was recognized as a planning tool in the designation of the rural-urban continuum, urban green network, community spaces and logistic centers. The commuter line together with adjoined uses, today, might be a remarkable case in the broad identification of the railway heritage assets as well as the complementary relationship between urban morphology and history. Besides being a mass transport service covering approximately 37 km distance, the line provides planning opportunities in consolidating the fragmented historic properties (historic villages, landed estates, industrial areas etc.) of the Republican period plans and discovering the spatial interactions generated by the railway lines. In this respect, the aim of this study is to reveal the significance of Ankara Commuter Line as a city planning legacy by mapping its earlier development and accompanied built and landscape heritages. Keywords: City Planning Legacy, Ankara Commuter Line, Planning History, Railway Heritage Introduction Beyond being linear transport features, railways have always been constructive tools in the early 20 th century nation-building, economic restructuring, territorial control, urban and regional development processes. Setting aside their technical features, a railway line may be recognized as the medium of a long journey that penetrates into the history of a city and society by revealing and incorporating historic assets. Within this context, this paper focuses on the commuter line of Ankara as the product and witness of the early 20 th century modern planning experience. Before World War I (WWI), the railway network crossing Ottoman Anatolia (Berlin-Istanbul, Istanbul-Bagdad) was controlled by the European empires. The railway technology, on the other hand, was imported from those western quarters; and Ottoman Empire was obliged to create tremendous budgets for the regional railway constructions. Since the railway policy of Ottoman Period was strongly dependent to territorial/regional control plans of European empires, the inlands of Ottoman Anatolia lacked of railway system which further became a strategic problem during the Turkish War of Independence. After the WWI, many newly established nations started to structure their economy in line with the progressive development ideas. The Republic of Turkey followed this path in order to remove dependent Ottoman Empire image as well as to take a place among developed Western countries as an independent and equal partner. Removal of railway imperialism was one of the targets of the young Republic in making independent national policy and economy (Figure 1). Nationalization of the railway network was equated with the success of the new regime; and institutionalization of railway constructions was recognized as a prerequisite in achieving national development and international commerce goals. The pronunciation of Ankara as the new capital was also supporting the progressive ideals of the state in a sense that the establishment of modern capital would represent the new regime and its cultural codes. Ankara, on the other hand, was offering a poor nature and insufficient infrastructure qualities in the aftermath of the War -even though it had been a prestigious and strategic node during the Turkish War of Independence owing to its central geographical location and the existence of railway and telegraph systems 1. Therefore, the establishment of the capital city and construction of the commuter line began simultaneously; and 1 During the War, Ankara was decided to be the center of the War since the city was far enough from the hot war and close to the West. The city was also a node in the telegraph network and had the railway access to Istanbul and other war spaces (Tekeli, 1984). After the War, Republican elites were expecting that Istanbul would stay as the capital city. However, as being the prestigious center of the War, Ankara was pronounced to be the new capital city. The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 this process generated a commuter line which has been highly integrated with the Republican Period‟s industrial and landscape heritage. Figure 1: Demiryollar [Railway] Newspaper, 1931:7. Picture depicting the power and significance of machine age and railway construction as the sign of civilization. There are two early planning studies which play significant roles in the emergence of the modern urban core and rural environments of Ankara as well as the development of Ankara commuter line. Prepared by Carl C. Lörcher (1924-1925) and Hermann Jansen (1928-1937), the main features of the plans were expressing the 19 th century culturalist planning approaches2. The commuter line of Ankara, on the other hand, was recognized as a consolidative and generative component in these early planning approaches, since it was united with green stripes, public squares, productive landscapes (agricultural lands, landed estates, recreation areas) and small number of industrial quarters. Later planning experiences of the city between 1955 and 1980 exposed the commuter line as a barrier and transportation threshold in the designation of industrial and residential zones, shaping up the urban macroform and stratifying parallel multi-lane roads which further resulted in a sharp polarization between north and south of the line as well as the loss of the earlier planning legacies (rural-urban continuum dominated by landscape fabric, transport-landscape interaction). Ankara commuter line, currently, depicts a territory that covers heritage assets and diverse forms of interaction as the products of modern city planning experience. Regarding the planning history of Ankara, this study intends to reveal the significance of Ankara Commuter Line as a city planning legacy by mapping its development and accompanied heritage. The conducted mapping study focuses on the early planning legacies which once produced continual landscape fabric (including heritage assets) and socio-spatial interaction, yet now are fragmented at a greater pace. Recovering the Commuter Lines beyond Mass Transport Keeping in mind the tight relationship between urban fabric and railway development and considering the impact of the railway development in reflecting multi-layer histories (nation-building, railway imperialism), it is possible to read planning history of a city through its railway/commuter line development. Transportation corridors, for Wilson (2002), can reflect particular events in nations‟ or societies‟ histories since these corridors may be deeply embedded in the collective memory and be recognized as “the timeline of the country”. In this respect, commuter lines possess the associative values that blend time-space and societies in a particular context. The built and landscape fabric enfolding railway lines, on the other hand, may comprise historic assets which embellish the historic significance of these lines. In that sense, a railway journey would transform to a spatial experience that narrates and consolidates distinct fragments of urban history. Urban history and urban morphology studies have a complementary relationship; as Moudon (1994) puts it, any morphological research can only be conducted by historical analysis; since whole and parts have undergone continuous change and transformation. Similarly, planning history of a city cannot be read without decoding and mapping the physical components of urban fabric in a certain chronology. As being physical components of urban form, the commuter lines might be significant cases in understanding the city planning histories. Beyond being massive passenger services, owing to their scale, function and linearity, as well as sequences (stations and 2 According to Choay (1969), planning understanding of the late 19 th century is based on two main schools of spatial organization which are progressist and culturalist. Progressist model maintains the social progress and future scenarios whereas culturalist model emphasizes urban cultural community and history in a nostalgic outlook (Choay, 1969: 31-102). The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 stops) and motion, diverse forms of spatial interaction and meaning have generated during their lifespans. The interactions often demonstrated by the culturalist urban planning approaches (rural landscape-railway, urban core-railway, neighborhood-railway, industry-railway, green-blue infrastructure-railway) contribute emergence of a territory that transcends the seemingly impermeable borders of the railway corridors. Since culturalist approach was characterized by compact urban form, radial ordered green structures and arteries, continual voids, low density development, strong emphasis on urban history and geomorphology; commuter lines were predominantly recognized as planning tools in the designation of the rural-urban continuum, urban green network and community spaces. On the other hand, a commuter line itself has the capacity to construct an interactive spatiality beyond defining a strict border between urban uses. This nature of commuter lines might bring new perspectives for the development of future planning scenarios; and for Allen (1991) “Its [transport infrastructures‟] primary modes of operation are; the division, allocation, and construction of surfaces; the provision of services to support future programs; and the establishment of networks for movement, communication, and exchange”. However, these interactions or permeability between physical components, for Moudon (1994), cannot be represented through conventional solid-void mapping techniques. This morphological re-structuring evolved historically also provides opportunities for the broad identification and consolidation of the railway heritage assets (station buildings, bridges, tunnels, culverts, maintenance hubs, storehouses, housing compounds, railway landscape) and accompanying heritages (industrial, landscape). The linearity and sequential feature of the railway transport brings out visual interaction with heritage sites/assets, and eventually make them legible as identical image elements of the city. Sustaining the entire commuter line as a heritage asset is an urban planning question owing to the scale, function, transformative impact of the line on the urban fabric and accompanying assets (built and continual natural properties). The railway lines have a transformative nature that generate continual spatial changes all along their neighboring environment (Bütüner, Aral, Sert; 2017b). The chronology and physical pattern of transformation are significant in understanding the spatial history of the railway and in developing future scenarios for the adjoining urban fabric. As Tatom (2006) stated, modes of interaction between transportation lines and cities are worth to discover, since they may be treated as spatial planning opportunities beyond being technical infrastructure requirements. The other aspect concerning commuter lines is their capacity to unite opposites (De Block, 2013) both in physical and conceptual/perceptual terms. They can knit together rural and urban, natural and artificial, traditional and modern, historic and new, continual and sequential, linear and nodal. This feature of commuter lines doubtlessly motivates urban history and morphology studies to adopt new terminologies and mapping techniques in understanding the transport infrastructures. Regarding this theoretical framework, Ankara commuter line offers a characteristic case in discussing the contribution of the 19th century modern planning approaches in creating distinct forms of built and landscape heritages, the exploration of the conceptual origins concerning railways as uniting planning tools, as well as the transformative impact of commuter lines on the landscape fabric. It is important to note that there is not any previous study concerning the historic significance, heritage value or morphological analysis of Sincan-Kayaş Commuter Line development in Ankara. Through this study, it is also aimed that planning history studies in Turkey might gain new perspectives in understanding the tight relationship between urban history, urban morphology and commuter line development as well as in the broad identification of railway and accompanying built and landscape assets as significant modern planning heritages. Reading the Planning Legacy of Ankara through Co mmuter Line Development Emergence of the city of Ankara and the commuter line have a peculiar and shared planning history dated back to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The capital city was shaped by six planning experiences 3 having their impacts on the macroform, CBD, transport systems and quality of life. Regarding the approaches adopted for these planning processes and the changing growth dynamics of Ankara, the commuter line was conceptualized, utilized and transformed in distinct ways. Among them, the plans prepared by Lörcher and Jansen are the focuses of this article, since their approach on Ankara commuter line aimed to generate rural urban continuum, social meanings, visual quality and quality of life which are worth to explore. Reflecting the culturalist ideas, these two early planning experiences recognized the commuter line development predominantly as a tool for bringing social infrastructure to the city and in exposing rural-urban continuum by uniting the line with industrial areas, landed estates and green structures. By the later planning processes, the multiple functions of the commuter line were reduced into transport oriented strategies as opposed to the early planning approaches. 3 Realized between 1924-1956, the three master plans followed culturalist planning approaches. The two plans prepared between 1970-1990 had the features of structure plan, and the rest adopted strategic planning approach. The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 This approach further resulted in the loss of historic meaning of the line and the fragmentation of the earlier planning legacies. Establishment of Ankara and the commuter line had a close relationship with the progressist4 and statist goals of the early Republican Period: realization of the exemplary urban revolution, cultural modernization, socioeconomical progress embodied in the establishment of the modern capital city. Ankara as being the new administrative center would portray the spatial manifestation of the national progress. The War of Independence brought a demolished town center that had long lacked of sufficient social, cultural and physical services. The regional railway line reaching to the west edge of the town center was the only sign of civilization grasping the moorlands of Ankara. Displaying the characteristic properties of the pre-industrial city, Ankara had developed around the citadel and made up of wooden two- storey dwellings; streets had not seated on any geometric order and lacked of infrastructure. German architect Carl C. Lörcher was commissioned for the preparation of a master plan in 1923 (Cengizkan, 2006). Finalized in 19255, the plan was modest and realistic which would be proposed to a newly established state that had limited post-war budget, human resources and technical knowledge. The plan has a circular and compact macro-form supported by radial axes and baroque arrangements that associates sub-planning areas (Figure 2). The main districts, namely the historic town center Angora (on the north) and the new city Çankaya (on the north) were associated by the Station Road 6. Starting from the railway station park, the Station Road, as its contemporaries in the Europe, was designed as the most prestigious commercial axis of the city. The main railway station and its periphery, for Lörcher (1925), should become one of the most significant image elements of Ankara. The station would be where newcomers and visitors met with the capital city and should reflect the modern cultural life in the city. For this reason, the periphery of the station was supported by commercial uses as well as parks and public squares having radial arrangements. Figure 2: Carl C. Lörcher. Ankara Master Plan dated 1925 (on the left); railway line and green network in Lörcher Plan (on the right). The construction of additional regional railway lines, for Lörcher (1925), would transform Ankara an important logistic node in the country and enforce its centrality within Anatolia. As a consequence, an industrial quarter was formed following the 3 km distance from the main station. Since the additional lanes of regional railway were under construction, Lörcher delimited planning study with the main station on the west (Figure 2). Regarding the feasibility limits of states‟ post-war economy, he did not suggest development on the flat lands of west portion (Lörcher, 1925), or not expose it as a possible development axis. Following the establishment of Ankara-Kayaş railway line, railway excursion tours towards east were started in 1928 (Emiroğlu & Uzmay, 2013) which aimed to meet citizens with rural extensions of the city rather than providing massive transport. Dated back to the late 19 th century, there have been vineyards, orchards, small size landed estates and summer houses on the route of the railway (Bütüner, Aral, Çavdar; 2017a). The excursion tours aimed to make existing green patches accessible, whereas the culturalist planning scenarios consolidated For the founders of the Republic -Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his comrades, being a self-sufficient nation necessitated progress in all levels and arms of economy (agriculture, industry, commerce), land democracy, science and culture. During the planning study, Lörcher submitted two plans for the development of the historic city and the new city. The plan dated 1924 was mainly focusing on the existing urban pattern to highlight the historic and cultural potentials of the district whereas the plan dated 1925 was aiming to construct the new city and governmental quarter of the Republic. For Lörcher, Angora would reflect „the glorious historic past of the city‟ whereas Çankaya would represent „the future visions‟. 6 Besides station and its periphery, the planning report detailly analyzed potentials of the existing historic landmarks as well as stream network as a social infrastructure component, and proposed new road network, residential areas, public spaces, and urban services. 4 5 The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 the patches by the addition of new green infills. The west axis, on the other hand, had different development dynamics owing to the geomorphologic outlines, soil structure, hydrology as well as spatial history of the land. In the early 1920s‟, the railway line was the only sign of civilization grasping the moorlands of west Ankara. Moreover, marshlands extending along the Ankara Stream were enfolding the line. This physical character of the west was disrupting the modern image of the city besides being public health threat, whereas the west pole was recognized as a gate through which the regional trains approach to the city. Consequently, in 1925, quite a large size landed estate, namely Atatürk Forest Farm, was established in order to replace marshlands with productive and modern landscape; maintain the agricultural and industrial revolution; provide new and modern modes of recreation. Covering 52.000.000 sqm land, AFF was offering recreational and agricultural education facilities, in addition to modern agricultural and agro-industrial production. A railway station was opened in 1926 to reach the Farmland from the city center -which would also become a node for supplying raw materials as well as distributing AFF products such as beer, milk etc. to other cities. Existence of AFF and railway corridor attracted the industrial development along the commuter line, such as cement factory (1926), cartridge factory (1955), sugar factory (1962) in the following decades. The military quarters were also formed in the west portion as being other consequences of commuter line development. At the end of the 1920s‟ the population of Ankara increased more rapid than it was expected in 1924 7. To obtain a new master plan, an invited planning competition was opened in 19288. Among the candidates, Hermann Jansen who was also the award-winner of the Berlin Master Plan Competition was commissioned. Representing the culturalist school of spatial organization, the plan dated 1932 had a circular and compact macro-form and aimed to develop the city towards the north-south and east directions (Figure 3). The legacy of Lörcher Plan was kept except the revisions concerning the peripheral development of the Main Railway Station. Jansen‟s plan isolated the Main Station from the city center through placing it within an industrial corridor and removing the commercial uses around it (Günay, 1988). The construction of large arteries for motorized transportation, on the other hand, was not encouraged; even the main arteries of north-south and east-west connections were kept limited without bringing alternative roads that further caused permanent traffic congestion. Figure 3: Hermann Jansen. Ankara Master Plan dated 1932. The green network, railway line and main arteries comprising the outlines of the plan are emphasized in green, red and black colours. The green network of the plan had a high level organization 9. The green areas as being continual-structural components of the plan, for Jansen (1937), should be accessible for all people and be offered in every The population of Ankara was 40,000 in 1924, and Lörcher foresaw the future population of Ankara as 200,000 for twenty years since he had suggested low density development for the new city. However, the population of Ankara has already reached 75,000 in 1928, and there were not any planning experts to control the growth of the capital. 8 Before the competition, German planner Carl C. Lörcher was commissioned for the preperation of Ankara Master Plan in 1924 (Cengizkan, 2006). Continued until 1926, the planning study focused on reclamation of old city as well as designation of the main elements of new city without paying attention to macroform development. 9 Previous planning approaches, for Jansen, recognized green areas as means of beautifying the environment, while contemporary planning approach interpreted them as a „tool for providing health and recreation facilities to modern human‟. Recreation and relaxation were equated with sports and walking activities in Jansen‟s planning approach; modern human could relax by walking and involving in sports. 7 The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 neighborhood (Figure 3). Similar to Lörcher‟s approach, Jansen put a strong emphasis on the continuity of green stripes10 along the commuter line, and for him “skeleton of the city should be composed of main arteries, railway line and green stripes”. Moreover, these stripes were not only supporting pedestrian movement but also adding “visual quality” to the transport modes (Jansen,1937). Extending along the arteries, commuter line, and Ankara Stream green stripes should orientate people through parks, squares, private gardens or even the frontiers of the city. By this way, arteries and commuter line would provide continuity between rural landscapes and urban core (Jansen, 1937). Together with the establishment of Atatürk‟s private farm and Etimesgut and Sincan Modal Villages, west of the city needed new road connections that had not been foreseen in the 1932 plan. In addition to that, continuous changes comprising density increases and speculative pressures were begun to deploy within the plan by the coactions of the local administration. For these reasons, existing plan was recovered by Jansen between 1934 and 193711. The plan dated 1937 extended the urban fabric towards west along the commuter line and opened up new lands on the north, south and east for the urban development (Figure 4). All these plan revisions led increase in the number of railway stops reaching new neighborhoods/villages, and the emergence of „railway station and park‟ duo in neighborhoods as typological elements of urban plan. Culturalist school of spatial organization embraces the human scale and social interaction, therefore, even the stations and their parks were formed to produce collective spaces12. Figure 4: Hermann Jansen. 1:10000 scale Ankara Master Plan dated 1937. The commuter line and stations are emphasized in red colour. After resignation of Jansen in 1938, speculative pressures and emerging squatter-belts have started to shape the urban form, Ankara faced with unplanned development process. Nevertheless, latter planning study dated 1956 10 The green stripes were the planted pedestrian axes following main and lateral arteries as well as commuter line (Jansen,1937). Jansen resigned in 1938 as a result of the weekness of the local dministration against land speculation. Indeed, it was the beginning of an unplanned development period characterized by speculative pressures (Tankut,1993). The only state figure supporting the planned development was the President Atatürk (Atay, 2014). After his death in 1938, local administration remained uncontrolled. 12 Beside numerous macro-scale impacts of railway lines, particular micro-scale interactions are also emerged between railway line and detached areas. Transport modes create collective spaces (Wall, 1999) and pointlike relationships, like stations which become the nodes of interaction in economical and social terms. 11 The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 would not cope with these spontaneous growth dynamics, since the 1956 plan was utilized as a tool for approving speculative decisions rather than controlling urban development. Starting with 1960s‟, the continual landscape fabric along the commuter line was interrupted as a result of sprawl and emerging squatter areas. Until the 1970s‟, the urban development of Ankara was carried out through piecemeal plans. Following planning study, dated 1980, reflected the features of the structure plan approach and became a milestone for the removal of culturalist planning approaches. By suggesting long-term strategies, it mainly aimed to control squatter development and propose a realistic growth scenario for Ankara. By opening up new lands for urban development and service areas, a linear development scenario towards west was adopted without supplying north-south road connections. The commuter line together with Ankara Steam and AFF were recognized as a threshold, barrier and macroform generator differing from earlier planning approaches. This approach towards commuter line, however, further resulted in the social and economical polarization between north and south of the city, fragmentation of landscape reminiscents of Republican Period plans (Bütüner, Aral, Çavdar; 2017a), stratification of new boulevards parallel to the commuter line and visual and physical isolation of Ankara Stream. Following master plans sustained this tendency, consequently the interplay between the commuter line, continual landscape fabric and water structures were diminished and the station parks in the neighborhoods were shrank or disappeared. The built components of railway heritage also have not been taken into consideration, currently, many of them under the threat of demolishment to sustain the urban transformation economy. From Legacy to Future: Mapping the Railway Heritage of Ankara Extending along 37 kilometers distance, currently, Ankara commuter line operates between the west and east edges of the existing urban core. It offers a characteristic case by setting up a territory where three infrastructures –transportation, green and water- adjoin (Bütüner, Aral, Sert; 2017b). Being both the product and the witness of modern planning experience in Turkey, Ankara commuter line generated a continuum between rural and urban, core and periphery, and united landscape and technical infrastructures, neighborhood and social infrastructure (station parks and squares) regarding the culturalist planning ideas of the early 20th century. The landscape fabric (cultivated lands, parks, forests, and landed estates) designed along the line (Figure 5), the planned interplay between nature and infrastructure were assumed to convey visual and aesthetic impacts, make the city legible and imageable and be the community spaces of modern citizens. Even though this landscape fabric is still legible as depicted in 2013 map, its continuity along the line was interrupted, the cultivated lands and Atatürk Forest Farm was fragmented and shrank out at a greater pace starting from the 1960s‟. The built assets of Ankara commuter line constructed between 1920s‟ and 1940s‟ comprise station buildings, station parks, bridges, tunnels, culverts, maintenance ateliers, rail and locomotive hubs, storehouses, and housing compounds (Figure 5). Together with the urban development starting from 1950s‟ and decentralization, the logistic requirements of the line was transferred to the west and the built railway heritage assets dated back to the Early Republican Period faced with long period of abandonment until 1990s‟. Currently, very few of them are registered or refunctioned 13. The industrial heritage accompanying the commuter line, on the other hand, was located towards west due to the existence of Atatürk Forest Farm and the density increase in urban core (Figure 6). Figure 5: Rendered by the authors based on Ankara touristic map dated 1963 and Atatürk Forest Farm map dated 1960. Map showing the built and landscape heritage accompanying the Ankara Commuter Line in 1940. 13 The unregistered railway built assets remained at the urban core are currently under the threat of demolishment. The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 Figure 6: Rendered by the authors based on Ankara map dated 2013. Map showing the built and landscape heritage accompanying the Ankara Commuter Line in 2013. Conclusion Commuter line developments, doubtlessly, bring fresh discussions on planning history studies since they may symbolize nation-building; represent urban history; emerge as modern planning heritages and city planning legacies; and often intermingle various forms of continuity (space-time continuum, urban-rural continuum) or interactions (rural-industry, infrastructure-landscape, transport-heritage etc.) owing to their scale, linearity and function. In this regard, Ankara commuter line and accompanying built and landscape heritage as the remarkable elements of urban image of Ankara symbolize several meaning sets comprising the statism and modernization in all senses and the urban revolution first experienced in Ankara. In the aftermath of the WWI, quite a number of cities were established, of which some were assigned to be capital cities of new nation-states. In this period, Ankara town was also pronounced as the capital city of the newly established Republic. However, transformation of Ankara from a small Anatolian town to a modern capital city necessitated planned development and highly organized infrastructure intervention. For the establishment of the city, famous figures –namely Carl C. Lörcher and Hermann Jansen- representing the 19th century planning approaches were commissioned. In these early plans prepared between 1924-1937, Ankara commuter line was not only recognized as one of the major transportation infrastructures, but also as a planning tool in the designation of the rural-urban continuum, modern industrial and rural environments, logistic centers, urban green network and community spaces. Brought by these earlier plans, currently, Ankara commuter line and adjoined built and landscape assets become the urban planning heritages of Ankara as well as the prominent remnants and the legacy of the early 20 th century modern planning experience in Turkey. The line and accompanying assets clearly have historic, cultural, identity, age, aesthetic, visual, perceptive, social infrastructure and technical values. Once integrated the planned green network (landed estates, recreation areas, vacant lands), industrial areas and city center; currently, the generative potential of the line is interrupted at a greater pace. The entire assets, on the other hand, may not be valued as the outstanding examples of modern architecture or landscape, however, the emphasis here is to conserve their historic integrity, their capacity in reflecting societal history and the original ideas behind the planning approaches -which are all indispensible parts of planning historiography. Although fragmented at a greater pace, the city planning legacy of culturalist school in Ankara is still legible and might be an effective tool in recovering social amenity and city planning relationship as well as re-evaluating the potential future contributions of spatial interactions generated by the commuter line. Regarding the history of modern planning theory and practice in particular, influenced by culturalist ideas in Europe, modern railway landscapes of Ankara also helps us to construct a modern landscape planning history evolved with and beyond planning thought and to restore the place and long forgotten significance of landscape history in planning historiography. The 18th International Planning History Society Conference - Yokohama, July 2018 Bibliography Atay, Falih Rıfkı. Çankaya. İstanbul: YKY, 2014. Allen, Stan. „Infrastructural Urbanism‟.In Points and Lines: Diagrams and Projects for The City edited by S. Allen, 40-89. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.1999. Çavdar Sert, Selin. “Bir Fikir Mirası Olarak Atatürk Orman Çiftliği‟nin Somut ve Somut Olmayan Değerleri”. [Tangible and Intangible Values of Atatürk Forest Farm as A Heritage of Ideas]Journal of Ankara Studies 5, no.2 (2017):225-256. DOI: 10.5505/jas.2017.97269 Bütüner,Funda; Aral, Ela; and Çavdar, Selin. “Kentsel Mekan Olarak Demiryolu: Sincan-Kayaş Banliyö Hattı”[Railway as Urban Space: The Sincan- Kayaş Commuter Line], Journal of Ankara Studies 5, no.1 (2017a):73-97. DOI: 10.5505/jas.2017.68077 Bütüner, Funda;Aral, Ela; and Çavdar Sert, Selin. “Transformative Urban Railway: Ankara Commuter Line and Lost Landscape”. 24th ISUF International Conference City and Territory in the Globalization Age Proceedings, 27-29 September 2017, Valencia.2017b. Cengizkan, Ali. Ankara’nın İlk Planı 1924-25 Lörcher Planı. Ankara: A. E. Vakfı ve Arkadaş Kitabevi. 2004. Choay, Francoise. The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century.New York: George Brazillier Inc.1969. De Block,Greet. “Planning Rural-Urban Landscapes: Railways and Countryside Urbanisation in South-West Flanders, Belgium (1830–1930)”, Landscape Research 39, no: 5 (2013): 542-565. DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2012.759917 Emiroğlu, K., Uzmay, Ü. Demiryolu Ansiklopedisi, Ankara: TCDD Gelişim Vakfı Yayınları.2013 Günay, Baykan. “Our Generations of Planners: The Hopes, The Fears, The Facts”, SCUPAD Seminars, Salzburg, 1988. Jansen, Hermann. Ankara İmar Planı Raporu, Translated by: Mithat Yenen. İstanbul: Alaaddin Kıral Basımevi.1937. Lörcher, Carl C. “Plan Açıklama Raporu”. In Ankara’nın İlk Planı 1924-25 Lörcher Planı, Ankara: A. E. Vakfı ve Arkadaş Kitabevi. 1925. Moudon, Anne Vernez “Urban Morphology as an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field”. Urban Morphology, no.1(1997): 3-10. Tankut, Gönül. Bir Başkentin İmarı: Ankara (1929-1939). İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar,1993. Tatom, Jacqueline. „Urban Highways and the Reluctant Urban Realm‟, In The Landscape Urbanism Reader, edited by Charles Waldheim, 179-196. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. Tekeli,İlhan. “Ankaranın Başkentlik Kararının Ülkesel Mekan Organizasyonu ve Toplumsal Yapıya Etkileri bakımından Genel Bir Değerlendirilmesi”.In Tarih İçinde Ankara Eylül 1981 Seminer Bildirileri, edited by Erdal Y. et.al., 321-334, Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayını.1984. Wall, Alex. „Programming the Urban Surface‟. In Recovering Landscape, edited by James Corner, 232-249. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Wilson, Amy. U.S. Route 66: historic road is time line of America, National Geographic News, 18 January, accessed 14 March 2018 at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0102_ 020104wir66.html. Image Sources Figure 1: National Library, Turkey. Demiryollar Magazine Archives.1931:7. Figure 2:METU Faculty of Architecture Department of City and Regional Planning, Baykan Günay Collection. Figure 3:METU Faculty of Architecture Department of City and Regional Planning, Baykan Günay Collection. Figure 4: Technische Universität Berlin Architekturmuseum, Digital Archive. Doc No:22993; plan no: 2750.