Gul 2014 mark trainer revised

Tarlabasi & Freedmen’s Town: Urban Renewal Planning in Istanbul and Houston Mark Trainer 4/25/2014

- Houston's Freedmen’s Town, Houston Chronicle

- Istanbul's Tarlabasi, Beyoglu Municipality

Created for Global Urban Lab Rice University: School of Social Sciences & Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 II. The Issue ................................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 4 IV. The Research............................................................................................................................................ 5 V. Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 VI. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 12 VII. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 14 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 17

1|Page

Executive Summary Houston, Texas and Istanbul, Turkey are rapidly emerging metropolitan regions at the forefront of the globalizing economy. With recent economic and population growth, their deprived urban neighborhoods are attracting increased investment attention. Revitalized innercity areas are seen as an imperative in order to accommodate future growth and raise city status. As such, both cities are embarking on ambitious urban renewal projects in depressed neighborhoods throughout their region.

In this report, these global cities’ approaches to urban renewal will be examined through two emblematic projects. With this in mind, Houston’s Freedmen’s Town and Istanbul’s Tarlabasi project are systematically explored to uncover the mechanisms driving each city’s redevelopment. Both cities espouse a private capital dictated approach intended to stimulate economic growth throughout the city. On the other hand, they differ in the mechanisms employed to achieve these goals including project scale and degree of public sector financial, legal and planning involvement in redevelopment. These two methods represent two distinct approaches for global cities to stimulate private sector activity in urban redevelopment. As the world urbanizes and cities around the world continue to experience rapid growth, Istanbul and Houston offer valuable policy lessons for how to advance urban renewal.

2|Page

Report I. Introduction Neighborhoods of social and economic deprivation and substandard physical conditions continue to be a prominent characteristic of most major cities. Though primarily found in underdeveloped and developing regions, these urban communities also continue to exist in developed areas throughout the world (UN-Habitat 2010). They often occupy centrally-located and economically valuable property sites leading to much municipal interest in redevelopment.

As global populations continue to urbanize, cities are facing greater pressure to integrate large inhabitant and economic growth into existing city boundaries. Municipal officials often view these marginalized neighborhoods as potential destinations to accommodate new human and physical capital needs. In response, they are increasingly undertaking broad urban renewal programs to specifically rebuild or redevelop these deteriorated communities (Korkmaz 2013).

As globally emerging metropolitan regions, both Houston and Istanbul encounter challenges of handling substantial urban decay in the context of a rapidly developing economy and population. Turkey, for instance, currently struggles with 14.1% of its urban population occupying urban slum conditions while the United States faces one of the highest such rates of developed nations (UN-Habitat 2010). These circumstances are juxtaposed against the cities’ profound economic and population growth throughout their regions. Istanbul quickly recovered from the global economic turbulence of 2001 and augmented the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 7% annually between 2002 and 2007 or more than three times the average for the prior ten years (Islam 2010). Likewise, Houston consistently generates economic growth rates ranking near or at the top of major United States metropolitan areas for the past decade (Qian 2010). These strong economic performances have attracted large numbers of domestic and international migrants buoying the region’s population. Istanbul added ~4.2 million people in the past decade (2000-2010) reaching a total of more than 13 million within municipal boundaries and 14 million for the entire region’s urban agglomeration (Inceoglu & Yurekli 2011). The Houston region similarly experienced unprecedented growth with the addition of over 1.2 million residents between 2000 and 2010 that registered as the largest absolute increase for any United States metropolitan statistical area (U.S. Census Bureau).

II. The Issue With a thriving economy and influx of new residents, both cities are facing increasing development pressures on underutilized areas. As such, historically deprived inner-city neighborhoods of each city are now targeted as potential renewal sites for the rapidly expanding cities. Urban transformation possesses immense potential to positively impact the built and social environment for all city members if well-designed. It can reduce crime, decrease segregation, remove social stigmas, improve poor living conditions and advance city quality. As cities strive for global prominence and sustainable economic prosperity, facilitating high quality central city neighborhoods is a municipal imperative.

On the other hand, poorly constructed urban renewal policies and initiatives can provoke inequitable outcomes. Prominent critics perceive urban transformation projects as 3|Page

manifestations of “privatized politics” where public actors implement developments for the purpose of benefiting economic elites. New developments often target affluent income classes to economically support the large investments required of these projects. With high rents and rising property values, many original neighborhood inhabitants are eventually displaced by new developments if proper provisions are not included in redevelopment plans (Podagrasi 2005).

Along with social concerns associated with displacement, urban renewal may also strip neighborhoods of their unique cultural heritage in favor of a contemporary development reflecting the desires of a politically powerful upper-class community.

Latter-20th century urban policy within the United States and Turkey began to prioritize inner-city revitalization as a central goal. With renewed interest in inner-city living, Houston leaders have taken actions to encourage investments throughout downtown and adjacent center city neighborhoods (Podagrasi 2005). On the other hand, a widely accepted urban agenda to transform the city into a “global metropolis” informs the political decisions of Istanbul (Onder 2012). Possessing physically and socially appealing central cities is seen as important to rising up the global hierarchy and attracting critical investment. Municipal administrators in both cities target policies transforming urban structures and environments to align with their centralized political goals.

As both cities embark on ambitious urban redevelopment projects, my paper will analyze the approaches of Houston and Istanbul. It will specifically compare the mechanisms utilized by municipal leaders to encourage/initiate urban renewal of deprived inner city neighborhoods. Given the extreme sensitivity of these vulnerable neighborhoods and their geographical importance in the larger city framework, it is important to critically examine city strategies in terms of public sector involvement, project scale and social issue considerations.

As other regions consider renewing urban communities, a comprehensive analysis of these cities development planning should yield important policy lessons for global leaders.

III. Methodology In order to systematically analyze urban renewal policy within the two cities, the study employed a multi-method approach to investigate redevelopment planning. These measures include qualitative interviews, neighborhood observations along with quantitative analysis of census and neighborhood data.

A literature review of Istanbul and Houston urban redevelopment strategies was first conducted to garner an understanding of the general redevelopment context in which these cities operated. Important considerations include historical developmental patterns, degree and type of current public sector financial, legal and planning involvement, development stipulations addressing original residents, among others.

In Istanbul specifically, this study further examined diverse perspectives on the urban renewal process through interviews and qualitative observations. An interview with Dikmen Bezmez of Koc University, a leading urban development academic sociologist, provided a theoretical foundation and understanding of urban redevelopment and its impacts on various segments of the population. Beyoglu municipality’s urban planning department’s presentation and follow-up question and answer session clarified the technical details of the project and the specific process by which the development evolved. Finally, an independent journey through 4|Page

the economically and socially disadvantaged yet primed for development neighborhood of Tarlabasi established a first-hand account of community life and physical conditions.

For Houston, the research relied on an already established understanding of the city’s development framework that was then supplemented by academic sources. Previous experiences with Houston urban development and renewal projects illustrated the mechanisms and agendas of leading public and private sector actors in the process. Moreover, extensive academic literature and easily accessible city publications and documents discussing Houston area initiatives provided necessary information on the city’s projects.

IV. The Research Houston, Texas Political Culture Houston adopts a strongly individualistic political ideology with roots dating back to the 1875 Texas Constitution. An emphasis on independent enterprise imbues this foundational document that set the stage for later city governance (Qian 2010). Historical city politics consistently valued private economic needs and advanced policies reducing any restrictions on commercial expansion and free-market function.

In terms of urban development agendas, Houston quickly evolved into an archetype of the laissez faire, capitalist approach to regeneration. Government enters into the economic and social affairs of urban development minimally and only in the capacity to facilitate more efficient market operations and create a positive business climate. Moreover, what governmental activity does exist reflects a small government model (Ewoh 2011). Rather than relying on top-down initiatives, city officials prioritize localized-level government involvement that meets the unique needs of their particular community. It derives from an assumption that smaller government reaches closer to community decision makers and can implement policies better reflecting local interests than can a large-scale and geographically removed bureaucratic entity.

Though still largely adhering to a free-market and small government approach, a shift in planning principles has emerged since the early 1990s that broadens the role of Houston municipal involvement and creates a political environment more amenable to urban renewal.

As political pressures for creating a livable urban center rose, public officials transitioned to a more interventionist ideology, though still very modest by U.S. and global standards (Qian 2010). While any development must still be driven and reflect private economic inclinations, the city now enjoyed more freedom in directing and accelerating the renewal process.

Existing Regulations and Mechanisms of Development Predicated on these capitalist principles, Houston created a regulatory and policy framework granting private institutions power to drive development as the free market dictates. An idea that public involvement is inefficient in certain regulatory and service delivery circumstances led the city to forego certain mechanisms of guiding development that exist in most globalized cities. For instance, the city of Houston is the only major American city without formal zoning codes where no ordinance directly restricts the uses that may be established on a given property (Qian 2010). Though city codes specify how a property may be subdivided, 5|Page

standard setbacks, parking requirements, etc., there are no limitations on the type of development (i.e. single-family, multi-family, commercial and any variation of the above) that may be constructed on specific properties. In other words, private developers are free to pursue development projects they foresee as generating the greatest profits without formal restrictions. Houston officials assume that market forces provide economic incentives that produce purer patterns of development and segregated uses reminiscent of zoning without the obstructionism and inefficiencies of city-imposed regulations.

Though not relying on legally binding regulations, Houston development patterns are partially ensured through a variety of informal and private sector driven mechanisms. Many neighborhoods and properties operate under the jurisdiction of a wide-reaching and complex set of homeowners associations. Texas maintains a long history of extensive homeowner association activity throughout the state (Pena 2002). Within Houston specifically, these associations are privately formed to protect a neighborhood’s property values, aesthetic conditions, amenities and overall quality of life for residents. Through deed restrictions, landscape ordinances and other regulations, these corporations are able to exercise control over the types of private development entering their community. Even though they operate as forms of restriction, Houston officials and political actors support such entities due to their private and localized origins in what theoretically more closely resembles market interests.

Overall, this regulatory framework advances economic interests through private and localized mechanisms.

Istanbul, Turkey Political Culture Istanbul urban development processes historically operated under a populist political culture. During the boom years of the mid-20th century, housing capacity was simply unable to keep pace with the rapid rate in which migrants were entering the city. Given that the public and private sector leadership could not meet rising demands, they liberalized various ownership rights requirements through “building amnesties” to allow these emerging communities to develop their own suitable housing (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). An empowered populist coalition of lower-income communities recognized their increasing leverage in municipal politics with industrialists relying on their cheap labor and political institutions desiring their continued stability.

By the early 1980s though, a nascent neoliberal philosophy began influencing developmental decisions and practices. Similar to Houston’s economic expansionist focus, neoliberalism posits that societal utility can be best augmented by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms (Onder 2012). As such, it assumes market functions guarantee individual freedoms and therefore caters to private property owners and businesses to advance developmental priorities. A 1980 political coup d’etat implanted the champion of the liberal conservative movement, Turgut Ozal, as new Prime Minister in turn inserting this ideology into national political discussions (Onder 2012). These national uprisings ultimately transformed Istanbul approaches under the mayorship of Bedrettin Dalan (1984-89) who instituted a municipal goal of becoming a “world city” (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Massive infrastructural and neighborhood improvements were undertaken to achieve this goal leading to the insurrection of big capital into development mechanisms. These mega investments and 6|Page

emphasis on globalized recognition subverted the city’s populist foundations and reflected a fully capitalist regime.

The global economic crisis of 2001 hastened this ideological transformation as city leaders further encouraged market-friendly dynamics to accelerate the region’s recovery. A new political party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), gained control of city and state politics leading to the further enactment of a foreign capital oriented and large-scale economic development program (Sakizlioğlu 2007). An effectively single party government restructured political and administrative systems with little resistance. Unlike Houston’s dominating freemarket approach, Istanbul policies affirm the importance of an interventionist public sector to open up neighborhoods to private development. Given the precarious nature of inner-city investment, private capital demands a certain level of public involvement to mitigate financial risks and overcome legal obstacles (Miraftab 2004). An activist municipal governance model prepares underutilized inner-city neighborhoods for ultimate integration into capitalist circuits by private developers.

In regards to urban development particularly, numerous festering issues contribute to a rising acceptance of an altered governmental approach. Rising public awareness of dangerous urban and natural risks that accompany traditional uncontrolled development patterns pushed urban transformation to the front of the government’s agenda (Sakizlioğlu 2007). An expanding Istanbul region that began to reach its natural geographical limits similarly attracted attention to underutilized inner-city areas that can accommodate growth. Finally, Turkey’s desire for EU inclusion led officials to undertake these projects to replace blighted features with ‘livable’ neighborhoods to raise its chance of accession. It became clear that a restructured urban redevelopment approach needed to address physical inadequacies to promote globally competitive city spaces and economies.

Existing Regulations and Mechanisms of Development One particularly dramatic restructuring concerns the role and power of the Mass Housing Administration (MHA). Multiple legal reforms established the agency as the single most influential actor in the national housing market (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). During the period of 2002 to 2008, a serious of provisions granted MHA sole control to manage the extensive array of state-owned land within the country along with sanctioning the construction of “for-profit” housing on these properties. In effect, the agency now exercises autonomy to privatize valuable state land for the benefit of revenue-generating market forces and development.

In addition to the reinvigorated MHA, systematic legal reforms throughout the mid2000s further supported neo-liberalization of city policy. A 2007 amendment (Law #5582) established a national mortgage system to provide housing loans under fairer conditions and form a secondary mortgage market to support greater overall access to housing credit and homeownership (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). This institutionalized and strengthened a traditionally weak housing finance sector that had impeded development projects.

Another set of laws reduced obstacles to development in inner-city marginalized communities. Gecekondu, or squatter establishments erected without formal authorization, previously were allowed due to the prevailing influence of the populist city tradition and need to house economically important worker groups. These settlements though are often now in poor physical conditions and circumvent much municipal regulation and oversight. Law #5237 7|Page

removed the development loophole for gecekondus and criminalizes their construction punishable by five years jail time (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Such changes primed these centrally located communities for renewal and ultimately led to the demolition of a record 11,543 buildings between 2004 and 2008. With increased access to deprived inner-city neighborhoods, a new Municipal Law (#5393) in 2005 entitles district municipalities to coordinate and implement urban transformation projects in physically derelict, deteriorating and unsafe (to natural disaster) neighborhoods most notably including gecekondu settlements. They could now legally leverage significant MHA-backed resources for large-scale renewal through demolition and reconstruction on these sites.

A final and most consequential legal change is the 2005 enactment “Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by Revitalization of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties” (Law #5366). An extension of the Municipal Law #5393, it provides the legal basis for large scale revitalization efforts in previously protected neighborhoods by enabling local administrators to designate dilapidated historical sites as renewal areas (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). If able to garner special area conservation committee and council of ministers approval, districts can draw on greater funding from the central government to physically upgrade neighborhood properties. These regulations empower municipal powers to implement largescale neighborhood revitalization and economic development projects in historical sites throughout the city.

V. Findings Freedmen’s Town (Houston, TX)

- (Podagrasi 2008)

History and Profile Freedmen’s Town in Houston’s historical Fourth Ward is a formerly prosperous ethnic enclave currently experiencing significant community difficulties. Following the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, thousands of newly freed blacks migrated from surrounding plantations into the booming Houston metropolis with many settling in the newly established Freedmen’s Town neighborhood immediately west of the central business district (Podagrasi and Vojnovic 8|Page

2008). A neighborhood of modest accommodations, it largely consisted of single-family shotgun-style and one-story frame houses with some two-story tenement dwellings interspersed throughout. With a concentrated black population, the neighborhood quickly emerged as the economic, cultural and intellectual center of the Houston black community throughout the late 19th and early 20th century.

Large-scale civic and community development projects though compromised community solidarity and threatened its economic and social vitality. An expanding downtown business and civic presence placed increasing development pressures on the neighborhood.

Prominent city actors seized eastern Freedmen’s Town land for the construction of major civic projects including a new convention hall, music hall, city hall and public park throughout the late 1930s (Podagrasi 2005). The physically divisive Gulf Freeway construction project connecting these new civic structures to a rapidly dispersing Houston population further bisected the Fourth Ward. Moreover, federal officials decided to clear a thirty-seven acre community plot of land acquired through eminent domain for the construction the San Felipe Courts public housing project. Though providing housing for some former residents, it failed to match the number of housing units destroyed and displaced the poorest black members.

Along with divisive civic improvement projects, limited and misallocated public services and regulations further exacerbated community difficulties. A 1929 National Urban League survey found that basic city services were not being extended to Freedmen’s Town inhabitants (House). In addition, formal city and informal neighborhood deeds, ordinances and planning procedures isolated residents from regional employment opportunities. Without adequate access to vital public services and employment prospects, the community spiraled into a state of dereliction.

Established families and long-time residents began fleeing the neighborhood for better prospects in outlying areas. Physical erosion accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s as stable, middle-class black families left. By the 1990s at the onset of impending urban renewal programs, the only inhabitants remaining were largely black, elderly, renters and impoverished.

Freedmen’s Town Urban Renewal Project Given the declining social and physical circumstances of the Fourth Ward community, civic and business leaders agreed to collaborate on an urban renewal project beginning in the 1990s. A non-profit organization, Houston Renaissance, was established by local developers with some municipal support to privately acquire Freedmen’s Town property for redevelopment (Podagrasi 2005). These plans envisioned a revitalized community where inhabitants could enjoy high-level amenities and quality of life (Vojnovic 2003). Given its close proximity to the central business district, the neighborhood’s transformation is a valuable asset for creating a hospitable business climate to attract human and financial capital. It specifically targeted 80 blocks of the neighborhood for reconstruction into modern middle-income single family housing through a small-scale property-by-property redevelopment (Podagrasi and Vojnovic 2008). Without the direct interventionist power of public entities, private developers relied on negotiations to sway individual property owners to sell in a very market-oriented approach.

Following the actual redevelopment project, the city implemented a market-based Tax Increment Financing mechanism designating the Freedmen’s Town community as a Tax 9|Page

Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) to ensure the area sustains economic and social progress.

Freedmen’s Town encompasses one of the city’s 22 TIRZ dedicated to supporting public improvement projects (Qian 2010). As new development occurs, any incremental increase in tax revenue from the district above an established base amount is returned to a central governing board for reinvestment into the community. An appointed Board of Directors consisting of between five and 15 members use obtained funds to increase neighborhood appeal by either: 1) acquiring blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, undeveloped or inappropriately developed real property or 2) acquiring, constructing, or installing public works, facilities, or sites or other public improvements (City of Houston). Through this privately-driven mechanism, the city effectively foregoes public tax revenue for the benefit of private developers and market forces to dictate improvements they see as necessary. In theory, this program supports a virtuous cycle whereby development increases property values which in turns leads to more available capital for the board to invest back into the neighborhood.

Market-oriented forces are granted substantial sovereignty in advancing capitalist interests through urban renewal as reflected by Freedmen Town’s redevelopment project.

Tarlabasi (Istanbul, Turkey)

- Tarlabasi Renewal Site (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010)

- Tarlabasi Renewal Site (Inceoglu and Yurekli 2011)

History and Profile As a diverse enclave of Greek, Armenian and Jewish craftsmen, merchants and other skilled laborers, Tarlabasi historically enjoyed relative prosperity and a rich cultural composition (Onder 2012). The state though imposed a stifling wealth tax targeting these minority groups in 1942. Neighborhood upheaval ensued as these groups sold their properties to pay off the new taxes. As traditional neighborhood residents fled in search of cheaper housing, a new 10 | P a g e

demographic and property ownership structure emerged. An influx of unskilled rural migrants attracted by ample job opportunities in the industrializing economy replaced the exiting minorities (Inceoglu and Turekli 2011). Further demographic transition occurred through a mass deportation of non-Muslim residents in 1964. Tarlabasi became a low-cost destination for various marginalized groups including Turkish Kurds and undocumented immigrants.

Along with demographic transformation, large-scale infrastructure construction physically divided and isolated the neighborhood. In 1986, today’s Tarlabasi Boulevard was constructed through the community’s core ultimately demolishing more than 300 buildings (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Moreover, this obstructive roadway cut off neighborhood residents and businesses from the established social and economic functioning of Taksim Square. As a byproduct of changing demographics and physical isolation, the neighborhood entered a period of devastating economic, physical and social decline.

Current neighborhood structure consists of 3-4 story multi-use buildings of heights between 50 and 100 meters (Onder 2012). According to academic research prior to urban renewal, 11% of the building stock can be classified as “totally ruined” with another 62% as “dilapidated” leaving only 27% in good condition. Tarlabasi now operates as a primarily residential community, though large parts remain unoccupied, with business activity concentrated on the ground floors of the main arteries (Sakizlioğlu 2007).

Along with deteriorating physical conditions, degraded social characteristics overtook the neighborhood as well. Migrants comprise 82% of the population which inhibits the community’s ability to integrate into developing capitalist markets (Onder 2012).

Given increasing illiteracy and limited workplace skills, service-level occupations predominate among the population. Most of the estimated 35,000 to 40,000 residents rank significantly below citywide averages for educational attainment, income, job security and status of occupation (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Current neighborhood dynamics reflect an economically, socially and physically disadvantaged urban community.

Tarlabasi Urban Renewal Project Large-scale redevelopment projects Typical Streetscape in Tarlabasi reflect the neoliberal political regime shift of Turkish politics. In order to encourage private capital investment in these with significant untapped economic potential, city officials advanced an ambitious publicly financed physical reconstruction plan for the Tarlabasi neighborhood. Following the enactment of the Law #5393 and #5366 covering urban renewal powers, the Beyoglu (municipality encompassing Tarlabasi) 11 | P a g e

in collaboration with state officials began developing a comprehensive urban renewal strategy for physically and socially degraded neighborhoods throughout the district (Inceoglu and Yurekli 2011). They determined 6 renewal sights on the basis of historical and cultural characteristics along with natural disaster risk that were ultimately approved by the Council of Ministers.

Tarlabasi was chosen as the pilot project where newly sanctioned planning mechanisms would be tested. Municipal planning prioritized both physical and social upgrades to address root neighborhood issues (Sakizlioğlu 2007). This approach viewed small building and unit sizes, limited parking, deteriorated environmental conditions and blighted physical properties that failed to satisfy contemporary residential requirements as a principle problem behind neighborhood decline. Moreover, low levels of earthquake preparedness within the physical infrastructure further discouraged investment. If these physical conditions are enhanced, as their theoretical framework posited, neighborhood functioning would simultaneously improve to the benefit of both current and future residents. In addition, a variety of developmental actions ensure that property owners and often marginalized current residents are properly accommodated throughout the process. Property owners are offered either up to 42% of the existing property after the project’s completion or full monetary compensation commensurate with the updated property value (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Tenants and other neighborhood inhabitants are often granted affordable units in the new construction and, if not, are guaranteed rental and relocation financial assistance to purchase a new unit in the surrounding city neighborhoods (Letsch and Lewis 2011). Thus, development prioritized both physical and social issues to revitalize the area’s former cultural and commercial vitality, reduce rampant criminal activity and improve overall neighborhood livability.

In order to quickly achieve desired outcomes, renewal planning relied on a proactive interventionist public sector and a large-scale redevelopment scope (Sakizlioğlu 2007).

Municipal government would provide mobilizing aid and resources to empower private development throughout the neighborhood. In specific, they acted in an intermediary capacity as the legal representative negotiating property rights with current owners. Additionally, the plan included an area-based approach aggregated neighborhood properties for sell into 5-10 building lots, rather than on an individual basis, to encourage larger scale renewal projects quickly transforming the community.

With a framework in place, municipal planners put out an official tender for prospective developers to bid on. A private developer, GAP, was ultimately awarded the neighborhood project in April of 2007 (Kuyucu and Unsal 2010). Their proposal incorporated design elements from nine prominent Turkish architects preserving historical facades while completely reconstructing building interiors. These large-scale plans, yet to actually reach implementation thus far, reflect changing neoliberal political approaches relying on a state-led initiation of large-scale and privately constructed urban renewal projects.

VI. Recommendations Houston, Texas The Freedmen’s Town’s redevelopment effectively preserved much of the neighborhood’s cultural heritage through a private-sector approach that can be replicated elsewhere. Houston city council established a preservation framework supporting the usage 12 | P a g e

and revitalization of structures deemed historically valuable. A series of 1995 ordinances granted the city limited authority to regulate historic structures and provided tax breaks for those who restore these types of properties (Meeks 2011). This market-driven approach avoided burdensome regulations and instead incentivized the adaptation of historic structures into new developments. Moreover, the small-scale property-by-property redevelopment process of Freedmen’s Town further preserves neighborhood integrity. With an individual property purchases, developers are more inclined to construct smaller developments that better assimilate into the neighborhood’s existing structural fabric. Freedmen Town incremental transformation successfully protected the area’s unique cultural elements. As global cities seek large-scale revitalization of neighborhoods, Freedmen’s Town serves as a model for how to proceed with development while simultaneously preserving cultural attributes and heritage in a market-driven context.

Another aspect of the Freedmen’s Town’s revitalization that can be applied to future developments globally is its focus on localized governance and processes. In a globalizing economy, it seems almost counterintuitive to develop and implement developmental priorities locally. However, this project does just that by delegating governing capacity to a community designated board through the Tax Increment Financing Zone program. Board leaders can more effectively structure development to advance and protect desirable neighborhood qualities while also reflecting the unique interests and needs of its community. This encourages sustainable development to the benefit of both community progress and resident interests.

Moreover, it promotes greater community support as residents feel actively engaged in the redevelopment process. A locally driven redevelopment effort, as in Freedmen’s Town, balances market priorities with community interests to produce more sustainable revitalization processes.

Istanbul, Turkey As the pilot project chosen by Beyoglu municipality, the internationally acclaimed Tarlabasi public-private partnership can serve as a model for future urban renewal initiatives.

With the growing influence of private capital and market-oriented capitalism, it is increasing imperative to integrate private institutions into any large-scale initiatives and developments.

On the other hand, public sector involvement may still be necessary to promote social responsibility and ensure that the project advances the welfares of all constituents, including those of the marginalized populations. This particular project successfully balances public and private sector involvement in an easily emulated model. Private sector companies, such as GAP, brought in significant financial resources that these capital-intensive projects require while the public sector provided political and legal resources to channel development in a socially conscious manner. This innovative partnership has garnered much international attention, including recognition as “Commercial Renovation/ Redevelopment Project in Europe” at 2013 International Property Awards, for its ability combine public and private sector expertise and resources (Turkey Property News 2014). As Turkey and other emerging metropolises continue to transition toward neoliberalism, public-private partnerships as in Tarlabasi represent the most effective mechanisms for shaping development in an economic and socially productive way.

13 | P a g e

Partially reflecting its public-private nature, this project is noteworthy for its ability to foster compromise and meet the needs of diverse interest groups. Project resistance was initially very high as residents feared displacement and the demolition of neighborhood heritage. However, a transparent planning process with many opportunities for public engagement created numerous avenues to express and resolve concerns (Calik Real Estate).

Each step of the process was made public and GAP offered 432 face-to-face meetings to discuss various details of the project. As a result of these public negotiations, over 70% of property owners ultimately expressed support for the project. Project details reflected the interests and demands of developers, municipality, property owners, and tenants in a way that few other developments can match. Beyoglu Municipal Mayor Demircan views Istanbuls first major urban renewal project as a testament to the potential of “great compromise where all sides stand to share the gains” (Turkey Property News 2014). Given the sensitive nature of large-scale urban transformation, active public engagement and transparency as in the Tarlabasi model is an effective tool for enhancing the social viability of any future project.

VII. Conclusion Though widely divergent in terms of their social and political institutions, both Houston and Istanbul are grappling with similar urban redevelopment issues. As emerging global economic powers, there is tremendous incentive to upgrade deteriorating neighborhoods to attract valuable human and financial capital. In response to growing demand, both Istanbul and Houston have undertaken significant urban renewal programs to create more livable central areas in Tarlabasi and Freedmen’s Town respectively.

These two emblematic projects symbolize two different approaches to stimulating private gains and economic growth. Both plans embrace physical renewal for the benefit of private capital growth and development. On the other hand, the Tarlabasi and Freedmen’s Town plans diverged across degree and level of public intervention, legal frameworks and project scale. Tarlabasi redevelopment processes encompassed an active city and state public sector that intends to facilitate large-scale and rapid urban renewal. On the other hand, Houston relied more greatly on private sector mechanisms incrementally advancing redevelopment in a localized context. They represent two contrasting methods for advancing private capital accumulation and economic growth through disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. In a broader scope, as cities across the globe increasingly adopt neoliberal and capitalist-oriented ideologies, the two projects serve as examples of how a city may choose to revitalize urban neighborhoods and other underutilized territories.

14 | P a g e

Bibliography Calik Real Estate. "Tarlabasi 360 ." http://www.tarlabasi360.com/en/ (accessed March 31, 2014).

Ewoh, Andrew. "Public-Private Partnerships in Atlanta and Houston Metropolitan Areas of the United States." Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets. no. 1 (2011): 119.

House, Gladys Marie. "A Brief History of Freedmen's Town." http://www.houstonprogressive.org/FTAbrief.html (accessed March 27, 2014).

Inceoglu, Arda, and Ipek Yurekli. "Urban Transformation in Istanbul: Potentials for a Better City." working paper., Istanbul Technical University, 2011. . İslam, Tolga. "Current Urban Discourse, Urban Transformation and Gentrification in Istanbul."

Architectural Design. no. 1 (2010): 58-63.

Korkmaz, Ozgur. "Urban Renewal Process in Turkey: General Overview, Economic and Social Analysis." master\., Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2013. .

Kuyucu, Tuna, and Ozlem Unsal. "‘Urban Transformation’ as State-led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul." Urban Studies. no. 7 (2010): 1479-1499.

Letsch, Constanze, and Jonathan Lewis. "Turkey: Trying to Balance Urban Renewal and Residents' Rights." EurasiaNet.org. July 18, 2011. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63858 (accessed March 30, 2014).

Levy, John. Contemporary Urban Planning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Meeks, Tomika. "Freedmen’s Town, Texas: A Lesson in the Failure of Historic Preservation." Houston History Magazine, April 1, 2011.

Miraftab, Faranak. "Public-Private Partnerships: The Trojan Horse of Neoliberal Development?." Journal of Planning Education and Research. (2004): 89-101.

Onder, Sara. "A Tale of an Uneven Urban Development: The Socio-Economic and SocioCultural Contradictions of the Tarlabasi Renewal Project." master\., Lund University, 2012.

Pena, Karen. "Reining in Property Owners’ Associations’ Power: Texas’s Need for a Comprehensive Plan." St. Mary's Law Journal no. 1 (2002): 323-365.

Podagrasi, Angelo. "Gentrification and the Influence of Local Government in the Physical and Social Upgrading of Houston." working paper., Michigan State University, 2005.

Podagrasi, Angelo, and Igor Vojnovic. "Tearing Down Freedmen's Town and African American Displacement in Houston: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Urban Revival." Urban Geography. no. 4 (2008): 371-401.

Qian, Zhu. "Without Zoning: Urban Development and Land Use Controls in Houston." Cities. no. 1 (2010): 31-41.

Sakizlioğlu, Nur. "Impacts of Urban Renewal Policies: The Case of Tarlabasi-Istanbul." master\., Middle East Technical Universiy, 2007.

Turkey Property News. "Tarlabasi 360 Named Europe's Best Development Project." Jan 16, 2014. http://www.turkeypropertynews.com/news/tarlabasi-360-named-europe-s-bestdevelopment-project/73 (accessed March 30, 2014).

15 | P a g e

United Nations Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat). State of the World's Cities 2010/11: Cities for All: Bridging the Urban Divide. London: Earthscan, 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Population Change for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States and Puerto Rice (February 2013 Delineations): 2000 to 2010�

Historical Population Table CPH-T-5. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/cph-t/cph-t-5.html (accessed March 23, 2014).

Vojnovic, Igor. "Governance in Houston: Growth Theories and Urban Pressures." Journal Urban Affairs. no. 5 (2003): 589-624.

16 | P a g e

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the entire Rice University School of Social Sciences who made the research trip to Istanbul a reality. I would also like to thank Dr. Nia Georges, Ipek Martinez and Abbey Godly for their invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the entire process. Moreover, the rest of the GUL class was also instrumental in focusing my research and providing support throughout the research experience. Finally, I would also like to thank all of my helpful Istanbul contacts including the Beyoglu Planning Department, Dr. Dikmen Bezmez and Dr. Korel Goymen for their valuable insights. Thank you!

17 | P a g e