Nilaykayaalp_4 Iaps Journal

Comparative Analysis of Urban Transformation Projects: Süleymaniye and Tarlabaşı Districts

Nilay Kayaalp Bahçeşehir University

Abstract This paper argues that the ongoing urban transformation projects in Istanbul reflect the socioeconomical, political, and ideological trends in Turkey such as Westernization, industrialization, globalization, privatization, and liberalization in macro scale. However, in micro scale, the distinct approaches towards separate historic lands of Istanbul are believed to reveal the internal conflicts and political tensions within the society. In this context, a comparative analysis of Süleymaniye and Tarlabaşı urban transformation projects will help us to unveil the dynamics of the real-estate market and could help us understand the multi-layered and multi-cultured socioeconomic structure of the city in terms of identity and otherness.

Historic Peninsula Against Pera Wooden houses with large spread-out roofs warm their purple colors amidst fresh greenery and within enclosures whose mystery delights me; although they group themselves quite harmoniously around all these summits formed by really enormous mosques, a poisoned atmosphere hangs over Pera, under an unrelenting light... The Middle East centers around a formidable tower at Pera, a compressed city with the allure of New York, enclosing Turks who doze into an indefatigable kef. Stone houses scale up within thrusting upward like upright dominoes, offering two sections of white walls riddled with windows and then two adjoining walls the color of dried blood. Nothing softens the severity of this height. There are no trees, for they would take too much space. The streets rise crazily and leave breathless by their thirst for gain; the houses join upper stories over extremely narrow streets. (Le Corbusier, 1911) (Figure 1) Istanbul has always been symbolically important to understand the political, economical, and sociological structure of the country. Historically, apart from being an important trade center due to its strategic location; Istanbul as an imperial capital was positioned not as a production center but as a huge consumption point enjoying the sources from the various parts of the empire (Girouard, 1985). In the Ottoman era, not only the economic structure, population density, consumption and production policy; but the spatial organization of the city were also strictly regulated by the state. This control mechanism was valid until the 19th century; as a result of the diminishing power of the central authority, global forces started changing the traditional structure of the city (Keyder, 2006). With respect to the political and economical impoverishment of the Ottoman Empire, the players of liberal economy started taking their place in Istanbul, transforming the consuming capital into a lively and cosmopolitan trade hub. Starting with Galata and Pera, where the majority of the Europeans and non-Muslims resided, the urban fabric of Istanbul has severely transformed.

1

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

The distinction between the “real” Istanbul -namely the historic peninsula- and Pera has sharpened by the second half of the 19th century. In the Ottoman era, the city was composed of three major districts, which were literally and symbolically divided by the sea. The historic peninsula, the old Byzantine capital, was referred as ‘Stamboul’, and positioned as the socio-political core of the city until Abdulmecid’s move to Dolmabahçe Palace in 1855. The Asian side was basically composed of several villages, Kadıköy and Üsküdar being the most important among them. Galata was located across the Historic Peninsula, on the Northern side of the Golden Horn. Galata used to be an autonomous Genoese city surrounded with city walls in the Byzantine period. Being an important trade center and a busy international port, the district kept its semi-autonomous status and distinct urban character. Due to its dense layout, Galata expanded towards the uninhabited lands of Pera. The district’s name ‘Pera’ was a Greek word which means ‘other’ or ‘far away’. This “otherness” would be a major characteristic of the district, which would later be defined as the anti-thesis of historic peninsula.

Figure 1. Sketches of Le Corbusier

After the second quarter of the 19th century, there was a visible gap between the two shores of the Golden Horn. The “oriental and traditional” Stamboul with its impressive Islamic monuments and modest residential fabric lay against the “Europeanized” Galata and Pera with its masonry apartments, narrow streets and dense layout (Girardelli, 2007). These two regions had considerably diverse social, physical, and cultural structure and strata as well. While Stamboul maintained a more traditional structure, in terms of buildings and social institutions; Galata and Pera faced a significant transformation and according growth. To the maps of B. R. Davies in 1840, Stamboul did not grow much beyond the Theodosios city-walls. However, Galata faced an incredible population increase and the city extended beyond the city-walls in three different directions (Çelik, 1993). The traditional population rate of 60% Muslim and 40% non-Muslim in Istanbul changed during the 19th century to a reverse rate of 40% Muslim and 60% non-Muslim (Girardelli, 2007). The reason for this demographic shift, despite the heavy Muslim migration from the Balkans to Istanbul, was the incoming Europeans to the area due to the legal rights and economic benefits ensured with the capitulations and Tanzimat reforms (Çelik, 1993). Starting with the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1838, foreign capital flow –meaning economical and political control- officially started. With this agreement (and similar ones with other countries) European merchants gained the same rights as local merchants and paid less tax than locals. In 1855, the Ottoman Empire was provided foreign loans for the first time in its history to finance the Crimean war (Çulcu, 2006). This was apparently an economic invasion and within a short time period, a significant number of European merchants, traders and bankers settled down in Istanbul, naturally in Pera, close to their embassies. Between 1840 and 1900, approximately 100,000 non-Muslim newcomers settled down in Galata and Pera (Shaw & Shaw, 2002). With the foundation Turkish Republic and declaration of Ankara as the new capital, the privileged position of Istanbul has drastically changed. The city has lost its economical, political, and social advantages and experienced a long-term stagnation (Armağan, 2007). As a result of the nationalist ideology of the new republic and its ethnic homogeneity program; the population of Istanbul shrunk, especially because of the severe depopulation of the non-Muslim entities. Termination of capitulations reduced the number of foreign merchants. Between 1927 and 1929, foreign embassies were transferred to the new capital of the republic. As a result the elite European population living in the area has

2

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

moved to Ankara. By the first half of the 20th century, there were attempt to nationalize and homogenize Istanbul and “enlightened” Turkish bourgeois and technocrats of the Republic started residing at the newly developed quarters of the city (Çelik, 1993). As explained by Çağlar Keyder, the class struggle in Turkey was accepted as an ethnic problem (Keyder, 2008). The contradiction between the bourgeois class, mostly composed of non-Muslim and European merchants, revealed itself as a Muslim versus non-Muslim struggle. The young Turkish Republic, with a desire to construct its “own” bourgeois class and national economy excluded the non-Muslim “compradors” of the 19 th century. In the Early Republican context, the rejection of the past had a two-fold meaning; the first was the rejection of the Ottoman heritage and the second was the antagonism against the economic dominancy of the West. In the official ideology, the backwardness and corruption of the Empire was related with the economic dependence of the country, which was directly related with the non-Muslim bourgeois class. This denial of Ottoman past had found its reflection in the urban platform as well. The contempt for the “cosmopolitan” and old Istanbul against “national” and young Ankara was the official discourse of the early Republican era. Eventhough, Istanbul was in neglect as a whole, the distinction between the historic peninsula and Pera was not bridged, on the contrary the socio-economical gap between the two sides of Golden Horn has widened. After the collapse of the empire these two neighborhoods were loaded with new sets of meanings; while historic peninsula was identified with the rejected Ottoman heritage, Pera was believed to represent the modern and civilized face of the new republic. The upper class Muslims/Turks were more than eager to leave their traditional timber houses and unmodern lives for the sake of apartment buildings that were emerging in the newly developing neighborhoods of Istanbul. Grand Rue de Pera, with its new national name ‘İstiklal Caddesi’ became the showground for the emerging bourgeois class and for the early-enlightened Turkish elites. Post 1950’s was the beginning of a new era for Istanbul. The involuntary economic stagnation and population decrease of Istanbul ended with an intense wave of migration, mostly from the Blacksea region (Keyder, 2006). The rural immigration had severe sociocultural impacts and urban implications especially on the old neighborhoods of Istanbul. These historic quarters slowly transformed into areas of deprivation accommodating lowincome groups and surrounded with gecekondu (illegal housing) and slum areas (Uzun, 2001). The distinction between city-dwellers and emigrants were not only economic but also cultural; the republican dream for a homogeneous elite class of Turkish technocrats and bourgeois has faded with the invasion of the city by Anatolian villagers. An interview conducted by After Bartu (2006) with one older man from a well-known family briefly summarizes the cultural conflict and social fragmentation between the “indigenous” citizens of Istanbul and the new-comers: Istanbul was conquered again in the 1950’s, 500 years after Sultan Mehmet’s victory, by the Anatolian invasion. These people brought their own civilization to my city, instead of trying to adapt to ours. I am sure that none of these people have ever been to an exhibition in their lives; all they think about is getting enough money for a summer house. We became a nation of lahmacun eaters. Fifty years ago no one in Istanbul knew what lahmacun was- or if we did, we called it pizza. Old gentlemen’s comments reflected the common nostalgia for the “old Istanbul” which was mostly identified with the elegant streets, cafes, and shops of Beyoğlu. Apparently with the flow of immigrants the face of the area has slowly changed; stylish restaurants, cafes, patisseries have left their place to traditional music halls, low rate night clubs serving the new rich class, acquiring financial power in a short time by war-time black marketing. Most of the famous theatres of Beyoglu were closed down, the luxury boutiques and restaurants turned into low-rate mills and workshops. The vacant properties previously owned by the non-muslim population were occupied by the lowest income

3

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

groups the majority of those being the Anatolian immigrants. Some of the old houses were demolished for the construction of new apartments. Eventually this multi-lingual, multicultural, privileged district of Istanbul, transformed into a center of crime, prostitution, unplanned housing, and low-rate entertainment. After 1980s, nostalgic renovation efforts and rejuvenation projects were established within the district. Istiklal Street (Grand Rue de Pera) was converted to a pedestrian axe of cultural activity and shopping with art centers, movie theatres, restaurants, shops, boutiques on its sides. The Tarlabasi Street was turned into a boulevard, by Dalan’s demolishing the row of houses on the right-hand side, and connected Taksim Square to Sishane. Istiklal Street was closed to traffic and trams started operating from Tunel to Taksim square. Several artists and intellectuals moved into the area and renovated historic buildings. The efforts for converting the region back to its authentic atmosphere and sustaining the cultural heritage have intensified after 1990s. The case for Historic Peninsula was barely different. The deserted traditional houses of the area were either occupied by seasonal workers, used as shelters for poor families, or converted into manufacturing ateliers and depots for local producers. After 1980’s a new era has started in Turkey with economic privatization and globalization policies of the government (Uzun, 2001). Istanbul became once again, Turkey’s window opening to the world and the city developed into a huge metropolis attracting international investors. Midsized industrial facilities moved from the skirts of the Golden Horn and large-scale investments took their place in Gebze - Izmit axis. Instead, the service sector started dominating the economy; Istanbul became an appealing center for finance, communication, tourism, international trade, and overseas transportation. Cultural, touristic and historic assets of the city were promoted to attract more tourists, more investors and more visitors. Historic quarters of the city, including Süleymaniye, started drawing attention of the scholars, tourists and eventually attracted investors. In Süleymaniye against all social and economical downturns, the district kept its authentic character and symbolic appeal. Within the last couple decades, the district became one of the major centers of tourist attraction, thanks to the glorious Süleymaniye Mosque and its world renowned architect, Mimar Sinan. Additionally, by the end of the 1990’s, relatively preserved historic fabric of the neighborhood presenting typical examples of Turkish vernacular architecture in urban scale became a point of interest for architects, planners, historians, international organizations and for visitors. The area housed fine examples of timber Turkish houses and the district was accepted to the UNESCO (United Nations Education and Scientific Committee) World Heritage List in 1986i. By the turn of the century, several urban development and regeneration projects were proposed to transform the area one more time in its long and nonlinear history.

Urban Transformation - Generalized Gentrification Urban cores do not disappear. The fabric erodes them or integrates them to its web. These cores survive by transforming themselves. The aesthetic qualities of these urban cores play an important role in their maintenance. They do not only contain monuments and institutional headquarters, but also spaces appropriated for entertainments, parades, promenades, festivities. In this way urban core becomes a high quality consumption product for foreigners, tourists, people from the outskirts or suburbanites. It survives because of this double role: as place of consumption and consumption of place (Lefebvre, 2000). “Urban transformation”, a more courteous term used instead of gentrification, is one of the most controversial topics of the last couple years in Turkey. Against all the criticisms, law 5366, removing areas designated by the Council of Ministers outside the conventional planning system, has passed in 2005 by the ruling Justice and Development Party. As a result, several inner-city historic areas in the major cities of Turkey became a center of attention for public and private investors. Istanbul, a huge metropolis developed around

4

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

numerous historic cores, has been witnessing hot debates on urban renovation, architectural restoration, social relocation, political responsibility, economic profitability, and property speculation. Urban transformation projects taking place in Istanbul could be accepted as “generalized gentrification” (Smith, 2002) processes, since the lower socioeconomic groups that were displaced towards the outskirts of the city were to be replaced by high-income parties together with a physical renewal of the historic buildings. This state-led gentrification processes are believed to share a common goal of maximizing the property values of inner-city neighborhoods (Uzun, 2001), there exist several diverse planning attitudes and various profit generating intensions developed for the different quarters of the city. The Urban Transformation act, namely the Law 5366 act was a part of the ongoing attempts for regaining the historic city centers of the major Turkish cities. Its aim was described as “Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by Revitalizing of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties”ii. Especially Istanbul with a large number of historic and industrial zones that are now located at the very center of the city, became the center of attention both for the investors and for the local governments. Law 5366 provides a privileged status and special advantages for the investors for their transformation projects within the historic districts. Special tax benefits will help investors to decrease their construction costs up to 30%iii. Also, the area will be taken out the conventional planning system and the projects would be approved by special conservation councils not by the Council of Monuments which is famous for its strictly conservative attitude towards the construction works within the preservation areas. Most importantly, the “urgent expropriation” law that gives the local government the right to expropriate the property whose owners are not willing to cooperate with the urban transformation plan. In other words, houses whose owners don’t have enough funds for restoration or are not willing to renovate the buildings they own could be expropriated by the local government. Apparently, “urban transformation”, let’s say state-led urban gentrification, was one of the neoliberal operations of the government. Neoliberalism, dominating the world political arena since 1990’s and changing the conventional relations between the capital and the state, was defined by David Harvey as “[A] theory of political economic practices that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005). However, Neil Smith (2002), states that “neoliberal state becomes a consummate agent of the market” rather than being a regulator of it and turn out to be an active player in the new urbanism trend of generalized gentrification. Gentrification is a concept defining the revitalization and reinvasion of the urban city centers. Reinvasion occurs when upper-status groups replace the lower-status groups in inner-city areas 8 (Palen & London, 1984). Gentrification is defined as “the movement of middle and upper-middle income people into a neighborhood along with the renovation of housing, resulting in the displacement of the previous inhabitants” by Holcomb and Beauregard. According to Karp, Stone and Yoels “gentrification occurs when well-off populations buy up, renovate, and refurbish buildings in decaying inner-city neighborhoods” (Uzun, 2001). The “first-wave gentrification” started around 1960’s in England as a marginal development when middle class professionals preferred to live in the inner-city quarters. Generally, the urban “gentry” moving in to the district renovated the old structures and the face of the district slowly transformed, so does the social life and quality of the neighborhood. During the 1980’s, changing demographic structure of the cities, internal dynamics of the housing market, increasing value of urban lifestyle, and the post-industrial urban economic base were used the explain the “second-wave” gentrification phenomena (Ley, 1986). However, in less than half-a-decade, the concept of gentrification and its scale of implementation have changed drastically from a marginal peculiarity to a state policy. Smith introduces the concept of “gentrification generalized” as

5

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

a state led urban renewal operation to gentrify the entire inner-city areas. Gentrification generalized or third-wave gentrification, the global urban strategy of the 21st century, describes how the state, local governments and international financers incorporate to market the city centers as income generating residential or touristic destinations (Smith, 2002). Smith also argues that gentrification generalized is a global trend implemented not only in the Western countries but almost in every part of the globalizing world, including Latin America, Africa and Asia. Supporting Smith’s argument, within the last couple years, a historical and cultural consciousness and an economic interest awakened towards the historical quarters of Istanbul. The city has a very high settlement density with a population of more than 13 million. The urbanization rate of Istanbul has increased 116% and industrialization rate has increased 140% within the last fourteen yearsiv. Additionally, a large percentage of its surface area is currently being inhabited with new settlements expanding towards the outskirts of the city. The real estate values constantly increased with a growing demand for land property, housing, and office buildings. The historic centers of Istanbul, inhabited by the low-income groups of the city, became attractive spots for gentrifiers, real estate capitalists, and the state (Ley, 1996). Following the ongoing trends in the world, several gentrification and lowincome housing projects were held by the local governments in association with the state and the global corporations. In the larger scope, urban transformation projects Figure 2. covered gentrification, urban renovation, and mass housing policies that Looking towards are designed for the reorganization of the lands at the center of the city Galata from Süleymaniye which were mostly occupied by the poor. In this sense, the social housing projects served as social control mechanisms to legitimize the “cleaning” of the urban centers from the poor (Burkay, 2006). One of the interviewees, sociologists Prof. Dr. Nilüfer Narlı, defines urban transformation as “the utilization and modification of urban pieces of land for social, economical, cultural and even for political purposes.” and states the questions to be asked “Would you like to gain profit from that area or do you really care about the city and its historic heritage and enjoy living in such an area?” clarifying the distinction between the first-wave and third-wave gentrifications. An active member of the Istanbul Chamber of Architects and a sharp voice against gentrification, Mücella Yapıcı, mentioned that: “All of the developments in Süleymaniye, Tarlabaşı, Sulukule or Nesrişat Sultan have a single purpose: Property exchange. Those buildings are prepared for their new users from a different segment of the society. New luxurious uses such as tourism, residences, or high-end condos for high income user groups are proposed for these areas. In this

6

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

manner the urgent expropriation act is being abused. These are profit generating policies for supporting, sustaining and marketing a city without any productivity at all.” As underlined by Yapıcı, the implementation of several urban transformation projects has recently started in the historic districts of Istanbul, two of which are hoped to be discussed and comparatively analyzed in this paper. Süleymaniye Neighborhood, located at the hearth of Historic Peninsula, was also declared as the pilot area for the Museum-City project. Tarlabaşı district located on the east of the cultural and recreational axis İstiklal Street was also designated as an area of urban renewal. Even though both districts were categorized under the same status by the law 5366, Tarlabaşı and Süleymaniye neighborhoods differ in social, economical, cultural, and political terms as well. Their different course of historical developments since the Ottoman times, found its reflection in their distinct architectural typology and urban formations.

Süleymaniye Neighborhood - Nostalgia Realized Süleymaniye Neighborhood, among many other historic districts of Istanbul, was declared as an urban transformation area and was also chosen as a pilot area for the Museum-City project by the local government of Istanbul. The historical significance, central location, and symbolic value of Süleymaniye distinguished the area from other inner-city areas of Istanbul. In this manner, the urban transformation projects of Süleymaniye shifts from an economic dimension to an ideological plane. As a part of their ideological agenda, the agents of power were involved with identification which is defined as the formalized, codified, objectified systems of categorization developed by powerful, authoritative institutions (Cooper, 2005). After a period of dominant national secularism, which was identified with Kemalism, Islamism in Turkey arose as a social and political reaction against the hegemony of the state (Gülalp , 1997). With the rising conservative trends in Turkey, the governing Islamist party promotes the traditional and religious values of the past. Especially Ottoman cultural heritage, after being neglected and despised almost for half a century, became a popular topic to promotev. The “greatness” of the Empire, “richness” of the culture, their “tolerance” for ethnic and religious diversity, and the aesthetic “superiority” of the art and architecture were mostly emphasized by official channels. Tulip festivals organized by the local governments of AKP surely reminds the Tulip Period of the Ottoman Empire. Calligraphy exhibitions, Ottoman music concerts, Quran reading ceremonies were organized to celebrate the anniversary of Istanbul’s conquest. Ottoman style architecture and decorative elements started being used, especially in symbolically significant buildings (Tekeli, 2008). The conversion of transformer stations into miniature Turkish houses reflects the nostalgic image of architecture. Similarly, “resurrection” of Süleymaniye, exemplifies the ambitious glorification of Ottoman art and architecture and demonstrates the longing for the “glorious” days of the Ottoman Empire to create a common identity based on Ottoman nostalgia. Even though there are contradicting and unclear declarations about the Istanbul MuseumCity Project, the main focus of the plan would apparently be the Ottoman cultural heritage. Nevzat Er, the mayor of Eminonu district, declared that Süleymaniye Neighborhood became the pilot area for the Istanbul Museum-City Project. According to Er, the area would keep its residential character and he stated “There will be housing in this area instead of hotels or residences. Once, Ottoman elites used to live in the district; that is what we are hoping to achieve right now.vi” Although his statement contradicts with the Prime Minister Erdogan’s aim for converting the area to a tourism centervii, it gives clues about his motivation about the project: Ottoman Nostalgia. Erdoğan’s words for Eminonu summarize JDP’s approach for the district: “I saw Istanbul as a synopsis of Turkey and Istanbul within the city of Istanbul is being represented by

7

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

Eminonu. Eminonu is accepted as the zero-point of the world and it is the center of civilization, culture, knowledge, science, architecture, aesthetics and enlightenment.viii” Likewise, when introducing the project, Istanbul mayor Kadir Topbaş underlined their purpose as: “When we complete the project, I want the visitors to feel and live the atmosphere of 100 - 150 years ago. I want to regain the qualities that were once existed here.ix” An architect working for KIPTAS for the Süleymaniye urban transformation project, accepted the fact that the local government asked them to make replicas of 19th century Ottoman houses for Süleymaniye. He stressed that they did not accept their offer and instead proposed sympathetic infill projects for the empty lots within the area and managed to convince them. He stated that they will design only two replica buildings in a single street where all the other houses kept their authentic timber character except for those two and they don’t have any reconstruction documents. He continued “There, I accepted their offer for keeping the 19th century fabric and to create the 19th century atmosphere all along the street.” Resurrecting the heritage of the Ottoman Empire is a part of the Islamist tradition and a policy for identity construction. The question of identity has recently become a hot topic for social, historical, psychological, political and philosophical debate and this paper is not intending to search answers for this phenomenon (Rachman, 1995). However, it does intend to underline the fact that urban transformation projects being implemented in Süleymaniye are not solely financial or political, but there exists an important ideological dimension. The questions ‘Who I am?’ and ‘Where do I belong?’ carry significant political value and have crucial importance for the individuals of the society. Philip Gleason, defines the identity dilemma as “[A] challenge to every individual to decide where he/she stood with respect to the traditional values, beliefs and institutions that were being called into question, and with respect to the contrasting interpretations being offered.” (Gleason, 2006) In this manner, where Turkish citizens stand, with respect to the Ottoman tradition and Islamic religion, is believed to determine their social standings and political preferences. However, identification will not result in the internal sameness, distinctiveness, or groupness that agents of power would like to achieve; since identification is contextual and situational by its nature (Cole, 1985). “Children of the Republic” loyally attached to Ataturk’s doctrines, accepted urban transformation plans in Süleymaniye as a divergence from the modernism ideal. According to seculars, creating a 19th century Ottoman neighborhood with the replicas of vernacular Ottoman houses is a cultural crime and is just a meaningless effort for resurrecting the Ottoman legacyx. Such a project is believed to target the newly emerging social group – a conservative high-income class- having close relations with the ruling party and fulfill their nostalgic ideals. According to Svetlana Boym, nostalgia is longing for a home that no longer exists or has never existed; it is a sentiment of loss and displacement (Boym, 2001). Nostalgia does not yearn for a different place; it yearns for a different time or better to say it is a superimposition of the past and future in a single frame. The nostalgia for the lost Empire, longing for a transcendental state of power and glory, is one of the powerful images shaping the identity of the conservative group in Turkey. The image of the Ottoman Empire, especially during the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent, describes the ideal and perfect condition of being. Actually, such a transcendental state has never existed but the iconic image of the Ottoman Empire is being promoted as a transcendental symbol of tradition and religion. On the contrary, the Ottoman image represents the ruthless dark ages of backwardness for the secularist/nationalist group. So, any attempt for Ottoman revival would be accepted as a betrayal against the Kemalist values. Yearning for the Ottoman nostalgia is a deviation from Ataturk ideals and from the Westernization utopia of modern Turkey. I, here, argue that Ottoman nostalgia is as problematic as the strictly progressive and nationalist approach as an ideology. Ideological connotations for urban transformation or gentrification projects, influencing a wide range of the population, would broaden the

8

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

already widening gap within the society. The ideological disputes separating the society, also divide certain instruments of the state and the public agencies, making it even harder to reach a consensus for an urban development plan. The seculars in Turkey appear to be criticizing the urban transformation projects mostly because of their fear and detestation of the Islamists. The future of the district and the actual needs of the locals are being disregarded in the political arena of ideological disputes and hegemonic accounts.

Tarlabaşı Distict - Commodifying the “Other” Tarlabaşı District, another urban dereliction area located in Beyoğlu, is one of the selected areas of urban transformation by the law 5366 together with Sulukule, Sülaymaniye and Küçük Çekmece. Tarlabaşı is located on the North of the cultural and recreational axis, Istiklal Street and positioned on the West of Talimhane, a recently pedestrianized hotels quarter. Currently, Beyoğlu region turned out to hold the most attractive entertainment and cultural attraction spots of the city, attracting millions of visitors every week. The gentrification projects in Cihangir and Galata and The Beautiful Beyoğlu Project gradually changed the face of the district into an urban hot-spot. In such a context, the location of Tarlabaşı is accepted as extremely valuable, actually too valuable to inhabit its current residents. A marginalized and lowest-income section of the population, including illegal migrants, international refuges, displaced Kurds, transvestites and Roman Gypsies, sheltered in Tarlabaşı, turning the area into a “social wasteland” (Ünal, 2008). The area was developed as a residential quarter for the middle class non-Muslim and Levantine inhabitants of the area, those being unable to afford a higher standard of living around Grand Rue de Pera (Belge, 2007). The masonry apartments built for the Levantine and non-Muslim families during the 19th century were characteristic to the area. Tarlabaşı region is said to be largest urban area in Istanbul keeping its authentic architectural fabric (Bartu, 2006). The hybrid character of the row houses with their projections and artnouveau decorations are believed to be a unique mixture of Turkish (Ottoman vernacular) and European architecture. The district is stated as an urban conservation area by the Council of Monuments. Tarlabaşı district has experienced another urban intervention by the local government, not long ago, in 1986 which was known as the demolitions of Dalan. Tarlabaşı Boulevard was carved out of the residential fabric, demolishing more than 300 historic buildings, for the task of “giving Istanbul a metropolitan character”. This project, like other urban renewal projects was interpreted as a conflict between “modernists” and “conservatives” (Bartu, 2006). Against severe criticisms the project was realized and disconnected Tarlabaşı from the rest of the socio-economic platform and intensified the marginalization of the social fabric. Two decades after the demolition, in May 2008, another Urban Renewal Project was introduced by the mayor of Beyoğlu Municipality Ahmet M. Demircan, Minister of Tourism and Culture Ertuğrul Günay, and several representatives of GAP Construction Company. The scene was a perfect example of a state-led gentrification project, presenting the collaboration of the central authority, the local government, and the financial investors. What was lacking in this scene was a representative of the local community or a member of the Tarlabaşı Neighborhood Association. In this project local residents of the district were accepted as trouble-makers that had to be solved immediately. Actually law 5366, equipped the local authority with all necessary measures to ensure a negotiation for the “benefit” of both parties. The complicated and long-discussed social dimension of the gentrification project is outside the scope of this paper. Here I would like present a different perspective and analyze the proposed projects from an architectural point of view considering the symbolic aspects of the project and the area as well. Istanbul in general and Beyoğlu in particular had a particular importance for the Islamist parties. Being the most Westernized and Europeanized section of the city, the conquest of Beyoğlu by conservative political parties

9

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

had a significant symbolic meaning. Ayfer Bartu (2006) argues that Islamist parties hoped to resurrect the idealized Ottoman social context by embracing all ethnic and religious groups and Beyoğlu would be their showcase. However their populist agenda could not last long against the global profit making mechanisms and eventually local authorities adapted to the idea of the “global city” for “global investors”. The latest urban transformation projects being implemented in Istanbul is a solid proof of this mental shift. “The capital does not have religion or nationality” is a well repeated quote by the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, defending the international investmentsxi. Apparently, one of the major goals of the recent urban transformation projects was to generate profit through urban property, not only for the local authority but also for their corporate supporters. GAP Construction Company (GAP) that was commissioned for the Urban Transformation project of Tarlabaşı in April 2007 (Göksu, 2008), was a branch of Çalık Holding Group and it was severely criticized for having close ties with the ruling Justice and Development Party. The architectural projects offered by GAP covers the Bülbül, Çukur ve Şehit Muhtar neighborhoods. The projects aims to renew 278 apartment buildings in nine blocks with more than 20,000 square meters of land area. The construction company agreed on having the 52% of the project, leaving the 48% to the localsxii. The projects, designed

by nine star architects, including Han Tümertekin, Mehmet Alper, Hasan Çalışlar-Kerem Erginoğlu, Cem İlhan-Tülin Hadi, Nuran Karakaş, and Yavuz Selim Sepin, who were well advertised and promoted in the mediaxiii. The project had a different architectural approach and revealed an ambitious perspective to the problem of urban renovation. Without considering the social dimension of the project, we have to accept that the design program has the potential to open new dimensions for the renovation and conservation programs in Turkey. Faruk Göksu (2008), in his strategic and social plan for negotiation, emphasized that this renewal project could be an opportunity for the area and could be considered as a chance for the utilization of architectural heritage. Apparently, the conventional conservation strategy of keeping the facade of an historic building or reconstructing the structure by replicating the original elevation and making necessary changes within the original limits of the building was challenged in this project. Not only the function of the old buildings (270 of 296 buildings are registered as historic) but also their structural system, spatial limitations, interior-exterior relations, and even their scale were modified in this program. Consequently, this ambitious project became the target of Chamber of Architects and Tarlabaşı Neighborhood Association (TNA). Erdal Aybek, the representative of TNA harshly criticized the project and defined the proposed buildings as “matchboxes” or “ice blocks of 16 storey”, counting the underground parking. He blamed the designing architects for not analyzing the social fabric of the area and ignoring the actual needs of its inhabitants. He underlined the social gap that would occur with the realization of the proposed “gated” project. The projects appear to be against the conventional conservation criteria of the Council of Monuments or other national or international preservation committees. One of the most famous architects of Turkey, Han Tümertekin was against such prejudices and told us that “The projects seem to be flexible and open for architectural manipulation; but this is not true. Every single step of conventional preservation and restoration techniques and regulations are strictly followed in this process.” His firm is designing the largest parcel in Tarlabaşı and Han Tümertekin believed that the process will last longer than expected due to social and bureaucratic problems. He argued that they care about the social dimension of the project as well; and do their best to provide their share of property to the ones already living here. Tümertekin was aware of the fact that this project will inevitably create a transformation in the social structure of Tarlabaşı; but he underlined that their aim is not social refinement or sublimation.

10

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

Like many of the urban transformation projects, the project being held at Tarlabaşı district is provoke new social issues to an already problematic area. However the main purpose of this paper is not to evaluate the appropriateness of the project to preservation criteria or its socio-economical outcomes; but to analyze the motivations and reasons behind such an aggressive design approach and how the “other”, the anti-thesis of the Historic Peninsula was once again constructed, this time through an ambitious architectural project.

Conclusion - Tarlabaşı vs. Süleymaniye Urban transformation projects of the two districts differ in terms of architectural approach and preservation mentalities as well: The restoration and renovation projects held in Süleymaniye were kept behind sealed doors with limited information shared with the public. However the audacious projects of Tarlabaşı commissioned by a private construction company and designed by star architects were publicly revealed and even advertised. The idea of establishing a residential fabric in the Ottoman mansions of the Süleymaniye was no longer valid for the commercialized streets of Tarlabaşı. The conservative and nostalgic approach especially for the facades of old “Turkish houses” of Süleymaniye, leaves its place to a large scale and aggressive transformation and modification of the apartments structurally, spatially and visually in Tarlabaşı. The historical distinction between the Historic Peninsula and Pera is still valid. (Figure 3) Today, both districts’ -Eminönü and Beyoğlumunicipalities are under the rule of Justice and Development Party together with Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. However their approaches towards urban transformation projects are considerably different for the two districts of Istanbul. As expressed by Bartu (2006), the Islamist ideology accepted Historic Peninsula as the “real” Istanbul and promoted its architectural, social, and cultural preservation and even reconstruction. Reconstruction of Ottoman houses in Süleymaniye is a nostalgic attempt to resurrect the social life of the Ottoman neighborhood. On the other hand, Tarlabaşı Urban Renovation Project has a totally different agenda. In this context, the main purpose of the project is not preservation or resurrection of the Levantine heritage; on the contrary the program proposes an overall physical Figure 3. Süleymaniye & transformation and socio-cultural change. The Tarlabaşı facade of the buildings in Tarlabaşı is the sole component of preservation (being a profit generator for the project) while the overall socio-economic structure of the district is subject to change. A brand new identity for the district is to be defined with this project. In this paper, I would like to argue that the urban transformation projects in Istanbul reflect the socio-economical, political, and ideological trends in Turkey such as Westernization, industrialization, globalization, privatization, and liberalization in macro scale. However, in micro scale, the distinct approaches towards separate historic lands of Istanbul are

11

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

believed to reveal the internal conflicts and political tensions within the society. In this context, a comparative analysis of Süleymaniye and Tarlabaşı urban transformation projects will help us to unveil the dynamics of identity construction and could help us understand the multi-layered and multi-cultured socioeconomic structure of the city.

12

Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

i

E. Kalkan, “İstanbul UNESCO’dan Çıkartılabilir”, Hürriyet Gazetesi, 08.07.2003. Resmi Gazete. Decree: 2005/9668. No: 26023. 14.12.2005 iii “Geçmiş Diriliyor”. Radikal. 21.04.2006 iv Y. Ateş. “İstanbul'un Uydu Görüntüsü Ürküttü”. Sabah. 17.02.2004 v A. Özyurt. “Osmanlı Hayalleri”. Radikal. 27.04.2008 ii

vi vii viii

ix

G. Aras.”Süleymaniye’de Neler Oluyor?”. www.arkitera.com. 16.02.2007 BirGün. “Erdoğan: İstanbul Için Gerekirse Zor Kullanacağız”. 18.06.2006. BirGün. “Erdoğan: İstanbul Için Gerekirse Zor Kullanacağız”. 18.06.2006. “Süleymaniye'de Kentsel Dönüşüm Startı Verildi”. www.arkitera.com. 07.03.2005

x

Mimarlara Mektuplar. “Çağdaş Koruma Düşüncesi ve Süleymaniye Projesi Üzerine”. December 2007 “Tayyip Erdoğan: Paranın Dini, Irkı, Vatanı Olmaz, Para Civa Gibidir”, www.nethaber.com, 03.04.09 xii “278 Bina Onarılarak, Tarlabaşı'na Yeni Bir Çehre Kazandırılıyor”, www.arkitera.com, 17.04.07 xiii “Tarlabaşı 9 Ünlü Mimara Emanet”, www.mimdap.org, 06.07.08 xi

References Armağan, M., 2007, Osmanlıyı İmparatorluk Yapan Şehir İstanbul (Timaş Yayınları) Bartu, A., 2006, “Eski Mahallelerin Sahibi Kim?”, Ed. Ç. Keyder, İstanbul Küresel ile Yerel Arasında (Metis) Belge, M., 2007, İstanbul Gezi Rehberi (İstanbul, İletişim) Boym, S., 2001, The Future of Nostalgia (Basic Boks) Burkay, H.Ö., 2006, Social Policy of Urban Transformation:Social Housing Policies in Turkey from the 1980s to Present, Unpublished Thesis, Bogazici University Cole, D.B., 1985, “Gentrification, Social Character, and Personal Identity”, American Geographical Society, 75(2), p.142-155 Cooper, F., 2005, Colonialism in Question Theory, Knowledge, History (University of California Press) Çelik, Z., 1993. Remaking of İstanbul Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley University of California Press) Çulcu, M., 2006, Spekülatif Marjinal Tarih Tezleri (İstanbul, E Yayınları) Girardelli,P., 2007, “Levantine Architecture in Late Otoman Istanbul”, Eds. M. Cerasi,. A. Petruccioli, A. Sarro, S. Weber, Multicultural Fabric and Architectural Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean (Beirut) Girouard, M., 1985, Cities and People A Social and Architectural History (Yale University Press) Göksu, F., 2008, Tarlabaşı Stratejik Sosyal Plan (Taslak) (2008-2010) Gleason, P., 2006, “Identifying Identity”. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (Routledge) Gülalp, H., 1997, “Modernization Policies and Islamist Politics in Turkey”. Ed. Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (University of Washington) Harvey, D., 2005, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press) Keyder, Ç., 2006. İstanbul Küresel ile Yerel Arasında (Metis) Keyder, Ç., 2008, Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar (İletişim) Le Corbusier, 1987, Journey to the East, Ed. Ivan Zaknic, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press) Lefebvre, H., 2000. Writings on Cities (Blackwell Publishers) Ley, D., 1986, “Alternative Explanations for ınner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.76(4), p.521-535

Palen, J.J. & B. London, 1984, Gentrification, Displacements and Neighborhood Revitalization (State University of New York Press) Rachman, J., 1995, The Identitiy in Question (Routledge) Shaw, S.J. & E.K. Shaw, 2002, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University) Smith, N., 2002, “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy” (Blackwell Publishers) Tekeli, D., 2008, “Erk ve Mimar”. 20. Uluslararası Yapı ve Yaşam Kongresi (Bursa) Uzun, C.N., 2001. Gentrification in İstanbul: A Diagnostic Study (Netherlands Geographical Studies) Ünsal, Ö., 2008. “‘Urban Transformation’ as State-Led Property Transfer: Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul”. Orienting Istanbul Conference (Berkeley: University of California)