This book is a chronological survey of the structures in Istanbul that date from the Byzantine Empire, i.e. the early Roman period to 1453. The chronological nature of the book is one of its best features, because it starts with a survey of the topography of the city, which changed over time in ways I wasn't aware (bays were filled in, then ports were dredged), and then began placing structures that remain, starting with the pre-Constantinian features of the Greek city, and progressing through the additions made by Constantine and his successors.
The book included a lot of illustrations, and is a well-made book, but is surprisingly prone to error and poor graphics. For example, the text sometimes slips into all caps by mistake, most notably at the end of one chapter, where half a paragraph was apparently affected by the "caps lock" button. More importantly, the drawings, which are lifted completely from other publications, are frequently inadequate. For example the maps of the city at the beginning, which very helpful, are simply copies of other maps, and no attempt was made to redraw them to improve their quality, or - what would have been even more helpful - superimpose them so that it was clear what was Byzantine era, what was modern, etc. The original drawings' list of numbered sites are even included without revision. The same things happnes with floor plans of the numerous structures - they are copied from prior books or studies of excavations, without any redrawing at all. Sometimes this is appropriate, but in that case it is frequently difficult to decipher the legend as to which type of shading refers to construction during which period. As far as photographs, the book has some beautiful ones, but annoyingly repeatedly does not includes illustrations of a particular monument's current state, or when it does, there is little context. For example, one former church's apse is now the storage area of a tire store in modern Istanbul. I'd kind of like an aerial showing the area, and then a close up of the monument showing the current context. In almost every case, there is a reproduction of a 19th century drawing - and that's it. It is particularly annoying when the book refers to a surviving monument that was part of a major complex of buildings that is currently bisected by a highway, train, etc., and then all you get (if that) is a tourist-type photo of an unidentifiable ruin. I was just irritated that I had to imagine so much. Or when a church is described in excruciating detail, and then all you get is a picture of one corner of the building which, in black & white and small, doesn't tell you much. But, again, the color photos are extremely good, and vastly helpful in teling you what the structures actually look like.
Don't get me wrong - this is probably the most useful book about the Byzantine Empire that I've read - the chronology goes through virtually every emperor (although frequently there's no connection to any buildings, I assume because none are extant) and the story of each structure is given in sufficient detail that you can peg it to the personages involved. It's just that it left me wanting more. But, to be fair, the detail I want is probably something you can't get from a book. You have to actually see the buildings. But would an aerial view of two, or a numbered legend tying the structures in the book to a map have been too much trouble? Apparently so. But even so, what a book!