History of Urban Design WiSe 13/14
|
Kate Bitz 343181
Alejandro Dones 356494 Hande Gür 358924 Steffen Klotz 321690
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary
I stanbul
TU Berlin Fakultät VI Institut für Soziologie Planungs- und Architektursoziologie History of Urban Design Winter Semester 2013/2014 Emily Kelling Benedikt Stockmayer Handed in by: Kate Bitz 343181 Alejandro Dones 356494 Hande Gür 358924 Steffen Klotz 321690
Content
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
3
Content Introduction: Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul........................................................................ 4 Defining Urban Design – Process and Product............................................................................................................. 4 Context: History and legal framework........................................................................................................................................ 6 Case Study: Sulukule...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Case Study: santralistanbul............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 25 References.................................................................................................................................................................. 28 List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................. 30
4
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Introduction
Introduction: Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Defining Urban Design Process and Product
This report will examine the social, political and spatial
Istanbul, this report defines urban design in an expan-
conditions under which urban development progresses
sive way, with a focus on its manifestation as a “mul-
in Istanbul today, with the goal of learning more about
tidisciplinary activity of shaping and managing urban
the challenges and tensions involved in the profession
environments, interested in both the process of this
of urban design by analyzing two case studies within
shaping and the spaces it helps shape” (Manidapour
the context of the city of Istanbul. To this end, the re-
1997, p. 22). Here, urban design is seen as a process
port deals briefly with the history of the city of Istanbul,
involving public and private institutions as well as in-
major urban planning initiatives, and planning law (with
dividuals and social movements as actors. Products of
a focus on the issues of informal settlements) before
urban design, such as those which will be examined in
examining two case studies that further pinpoint the
the case studies below, can be analyzed and evaluated
issues upon which we wish to focus. The questions the
as the product of these complex processes.
report seeks to explore are: What are the key aspects
Therefore, the quality of the design process is a key fac-
of good urban design? And, how if at all is it possible to
tor in the quality of its product. A good urban design
realize quality urban design projects in a highly contest-
process will be defined here as one which substantively
ed political and social environment? This introduction
includes all actors and stakeholders, in a way that is
will summarize the group’s view on ideal planning and
both legal and viewed as fair to the actors involved (see
execution of an urban design project; a lens through
Figure 1). Good urban design processes require, then, a
which the case studies can be viewed.
substantive societal consensus as to the meaning of le-
In order to fully examine the complex webs of actors, goals and methods which are in play in contemporary
gality and fairness in the arena of planning and building. In addition, although „legal“ and „fair“ may sometimes conflict as goals in a concrete situation, good design processes are difficult or even impossible under a legal regime which constantly undercuts some stakeholders’
Professionals Government
understanding of fairness – or even its own rules as to what is and is not legal. Of course, a broad social con-
Citizens
sensus on the issues of legality and fairness is also no Investors Institutions
b a l a n ce d
guarantee that an individual urban design process will be well-administered, fair, or inclusive of all the stakeholders who are (or should be) involved. The onus to
Figure 1: Balanced Urban Design
provide a good process rests upon those who facilitate
Introduction
Exploring the Ambiguiti es of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
ECONOMICS
5
ECOLOGY
Production & Resourcing Exchange & Transfer Accounting & Regulation Consumption & Use Labour & Welfare Technology & Infrastructure Wealth & Distribution
Materials & Energy Water & Air Flora & Fauna Habitat & Settlements Built-Form & Transport Embodiment & Food Emission & Waste
Organization & Governance Law & Justice Communication & Critique Representation & Negotiation Security & Accord Dialogue & Reconciliation Ethics & Accountability
Identity & Engagement Creativity & Recreation Memory & Projection Belief & Ideas Gender & Generations Enquiry & Learning Health & Wellbeing
POLITICS
CULTURE
Figure 2: Evaluaiti ng Sustainability
it. Linked to the questi on of good process is that of
of urban design will include a substanti ve att empt to
the quality of the design product. Within research and
deal with the issues of sustainability.
discussions, the group which prepared this report has
In sum, this report will seek to examine the conditi ons
found that it is quite simple to fi nd examples in which
of urban design in Istanbul under the aspects described
an acceptably legal and fair process is no guarantee of
above: Are urban design processes legal, fair and inclu-
either a truly binding agreement for implementati on,
sive? Are the products of these processes striving to-
or of a good product (i.e. quality urban space) at the
ward sustainable urban development?
end of the process. In some ways, good design will always remain subjecti ve and depend upon the viewer’s taste and prioriti es. However, the group sees sustainability – here broadly defi ned as sustainability in the ecological, social, politi cal and cultural spheres (see Figure 2) – as an aspect of good design which is not up for debate (James 2013, p. 24-25). Balancing the various aspects of sustainability is always a matt er of prioritysetti ng on the part of the designer, and it is unlikely that any project will be able to achieve a perfect balance of sustainability in all spheres. However, any good product
6
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Context: History and legal framework
Context
The reason for uncontrolled urbanization, beside migration and rapid growth, was also government poli-
In the post war period, in the beginning of 1950’s Turkey
cies. After the foundation of the Republic, all sources
met with new modern technology for the agriculture
were directed to Ankara to create a capital city from
sector and pushed for changes in national economy to-
what before had been a small town, and to strengthen
wards Industrialization. This development triggered the
industrialization in Istanbul instead of urbanization. The
migration by reducing the need for agricultural labor
shift in transportation planning shows the urban sprawl
force. In consequence, the migration was encouraged
development throughout the 60’s and hereafter. In the
by actual liberal policies to the big cities, especially to
early Republic, transportation planning was railway ori-
Istanbul, according to find job opportunities (Yalçıntan,
ented. After 1950 it was based on highways and mo-
Erbaş 2003, p. 93). As a result of job loss in rural areas,
torways. After the construction of the first Bosporus
city life offered new job possibilities and became attrac-
Bridge in 1973, urban sprawl (see Figure 3) changed
tive. Istanbul was strongly affected by this process and
the geography of urban development in Istanbul. New
the city grew rapidly and uncontrolled. Istanbul’s popu-
settlements were located along the transportation axis
lation, which was 1 million in 1950, became 5 million in
instead of geographic characteristics. ‘From the mid-
1980 and 10 million in 2000 (Keyder 2005, p. 125).
twentieth century, rapid economic and population
Figure 3: Urban footprint between 1950-2010
1950 1950
1980 1980
1990 1990
2010 2010
Context
Exploring the Ambiguiti es of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
growth, together with new transportati on technologies, gave rise to urban sprawl overriding all previous natural thresholds. The constructi on of the internati onal motorway and the fi rst bridge over the Bosporus
1950 - 60 First wave of migration and first settlements
signaled a major blow to the principles that had guided urban development over centuries (Enlil 2011, p. 10)’. Because of this lack of control, Istanbul’s urbanizati on was formatt ed by itself. ‘In the absence of signifi cant housing provision by the public sector or private indus-
1970 New municipalities and multi-story buildings resembling apartment buildings
trial employers, the migrants who poured into the citi es had to improvise their own soluti ons. The limited public housing policies were mainly targeted to the needs of the middle-income and upper-middle-income groups. Tens of thousands of migrants therefore built them-
1980 Allowance up to 4 story high buildings and attemp of municipalities to regulate informal settlements
selves squatt er houses, ‘Gecekondus’, mainly on public land (Enlil 2011, p. 12)’ (see Figure 4). The approaches of the insti tuti ons dealing with the urban context of these informal neighbor-hoods can be described into three major periods (Çelik 2008, p. 40; Özdemir 2010, p. 1112).
1980 - 2000 Forced migration, new settlements and foundation of TOKI
1. 1950-1980 The origin of gecekondus takes place in this period due to the defi cit of housing in Turkey’s big citi es, and from a strong migrati on from the countryside to the citi es (Candan et al. 2008, p. 7). Istanbul’s unconstrained urban growth incited by uncontrolled populati on growth
2000 - 2004 TOKI buying cheap land on the outskirts of the city
and the constructi on of ‘Gecekondus’ could not have been stopped by development plans (Yalçıntan, Erbaş 2003, p. 96). The authoriti es’ response to this ‘problem’ followed what can be named an ‘amnesty approach’. From the beginning of the fi rst informal sett lements in 1949 unti l the mid-1980s, a policy of legalizing the squatt er houses was followed by the municipali-
2004 - now Evictions taking place and use of regeneration as a way to increase the real estate value Figure 4: Gecekondu formati on process
7
8
Exploring the Ambiguiti es of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Context
ti es in Istanbul. Under this framework, vast areas of the
2. 1980-2000
city were formed, communiti es and new municipaliti es
In 1980, because of the politi cal and economic insta-
appeared, and a huge network of formal and informal
bility in Turkey, a military interventi on took place. As a
economy was created allowing the living of the mi-
result, Turkey’s economic agenda was changed to ‘a set
grants.
of measures encouraged deregulati on and the diminu-
The tolerance of the authoriti es to this process of dwell-
ti on of the role of the state in order to sti mulate a free-
ing during this period can easily be understood under
market economy (Enlil 2011, p. 13)’.
the scope of economic purposes: workforce was nec-
This development also caused a shift in sectors, from
essary (AGFE 2009, p. 9) and allowing people to solve
industry to services. Istanbul had a powerful role in
their own housing problems by legalizing the former il-
Turkish economy under a radical neoliberal regime, and
legal sett lements was understood by the government
became a service and fi nancial center (Yalçıntan, Erbaş
to be the cheaper soluti on than providing housing.
2003, p. 93). This ti me of period was the reinforcing for
1,1M | 1M
2,2M | 1,7M 3M | 2,2M
4,7M | 2,9M
7,3M | 6,7M
10M | 9M
13M
Units to be demolished by TOKI State Institute Statistics Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
120 000
61 400
400 000 85 000
1949 1950 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 1959 60 61 62 1963 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 2004 05 06 07 08 2009 10 11 12 13 2014
5 000 8 239
1 000 000
Figure 5: Number of Gecekondus in relati on to Istanbul populati on according to diff erent sources
Context
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
9
foreign investments and rise of financial market in Is-
(for a more detailed evolution of the legal framework
tanbul.
through this periods, see Figure 6).
After the foundation of TOKİ – the Mass Housing Ad-
The structural transformation of the market for labor,
ministration – in 1984 the governmental amnesties
new pressures and demands from the land market and
stopped, but the response from the local authorities
property regime, and shifts in the patterns of migration
continued being non-interventionist or even as a facili-
and in the profile of the immigrants, caused impor-
tator of those dynamics. The role of the newly created
tant changes in the city (Keyder 2005, p. 128). Istanbul
TOKİ during these years was mainly giving cheap credits
became a ‘Global City’ with an ongoing privatization
to families allowing them to find dwelling themselves –
process and was formed by city marketing strategies.
frequently in informal settlements – instead of helping
‘Gecekondus’ were able to be sold and rented, thus
to solve the housing deficit directly.
integrated in to property market. According to Urban
By 1985 Turkey’s urban population was bigger than
Age Istanbul report, in 2008, 30% of population worked
rural population, while the urbanization process was
informally, and 50% of housing was informal (see Figure
intensified, and migration continued and accelerated.
5) (Urban Age 2009, p. 38).
‘Population growth rate in Istanbul between 1990 and
With all this evolvements, poor neighborhoods be-
2000 was 37.1%, and in comparison, the increase in the
came a target for urban renewal projects. In the light
built-up land size was 17.9%. These figures show that
of capitalist purposes and reasons, renewal projects
within this period Istanbul has experienced an expan-
and with their evictions process; physically, economi-
sion to become a denser city (Altınok, Cengiz 2008, p.
cally and socially, started. In the last years, big mega
7)’. The physically transformations, which connected
projects in Istanbul have been also on the city agenda,
with globalization, were built in the time period, such
which is likely to have various effects on Istanbul’s for-
as the first gated community and shopping mall were
est areas and water resources. The Marmara Highway
built in the end of 1980’s.
Project (see Figure 7) serves as an example of Istanbul’s mega projects. It consists of a whole project package
3. After 2000
with the Northern Marmara Highway, the Third Bos-
A shift in the planning policies takes place with the
phorus Bridge, the new airport with its airport city and
changes in Turkey’s politics and after 2000 the impact
the Canal Istanbul. All these projects where enabled by
of globalization in İstanbul noticeably increased. The
the centralization of planning authorities in 2011, and
rapid legal and planning framework modifications that
are used to stage the national governments power, by
took place in the first years after 2000 following a more
developing the projects of superlatives and having the
neoliberal agenda (Candan et al. 2008, p. 14) started
openings set on historical dates of national importance
turning TOKİ into a more powerful institution, broaden-
(Letsch 2012, online).
ing its scope of work, allowing it to implement for-profit projects and form partnerships with private investors
1949 50 51 52 1953 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1963 64 65 1966 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 1976 77 78 79 80 81 82 1983 1984 85 1986
r hi igh ge gh t t ce bu o b
Figure 6: Evolution of the legal framework in Turkey. Legislation empowering TOKI
L ne aw d c pr we ess 298 e- lle it 1 t r y
F TO ou n
l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 76 ua
tte r
tte r
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
s de ubj im ve ec pr lo t t p o
T d h ar efi e ‘G re ea nit ec ha s io ek bi of n o on lit ab f at ol ge du io is ce La n hm k w & e on ’ pr n du 77 ev t, s 5 as en tio n
l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 63 ua
l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq le 49 ua ho ga tte us lis r es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 53 ua tte r
10 Context
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 2002 2003 2004 2005 06 07 08 09 2010 11 2012 13 2014
p tio bu ard n ilt on of be to fo al re l g 19 ec 85 ek on du s
OK n I da
cheap credits to ca. 900000 family housing units in Turkey
Am
M L ex as as as aw s La w e s a s s c id w ur ide end Co cop lus Ho TO xec ign TO nd ign 512 u of en 63 de ba n un e o ion s KI ut me KI ap me 6 in me ri pr tifi 0 i pr n e v n n c el tr g nt sk o c 6 ex nt il f T of g ov t o o o o h c a L o T a pr f zo ed ti pm n f t La al f p e f a O t Pu S K w sf he w op h ne u on au la e u I e 29 nt orm s 59 i b p f s res an th nn a r r l tio ig ic re om 85 pr a cop 98 or in fo d p Ac me t n s ht oj tio e ity g r d la t h e co o t e ct n a of to is nn o un s n as in t d te g s r
L L a a s a pa llow w 5 an ele w 5 tr lit a 39 zo d ct 36 an ie n 3 ne cu ion 6 sf s t ce (A s ltu o or o fo rt as r f h m un r l icl re ally ist at d oc e ne b or io er a 73 w at ica n ta l m ) al te l pr k u l r oj e u ni zo e y d ec r ci ne ts ba s n
tit rs y f le to or de a ge ed pp ce s ly ko fo n r du
in tat La c at clu ute co w pe i n fo nc 4 to ion sion pr rm 9 r p e ofi i ri m ss 66 TO , h o va pa io t o ssi KI ea f in te rt n ri on ’s lth d en to fir ne of sc , a us t r m s h te im op n try e s h d p ip ri e dt ,e pr le s gh of ou d oj m w t ec e w ri ui t t or sm h o ts nt k
TOKI: granting of credits to housing cooperatives
S
ek u bu ro p o ve m m on ild ild m en un du ing u en t a ic p ar s i to t p nd ipa ea n 4 lit la s st ns y or y Context Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul 11
Exploring CANAL the Ambiguiti es of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul ISTANBUL PROJECT
12
Chapter
Presented April 2011 Opening 2023 $10 billion 50 km long / 140 m wide Commercial ship traffic
NEW AIRPORT
AIRPORT CITY
No Environmental Study
Bid went out May 2013
1,5 million inhabitants
Opening 2017
Consequences
Consequences
$29 billion 7,700 ha 150 mio passengers/year Consequences
Predicted Urban Growth Figure 7: The Northern Marmara Highway Project
Planned Urban Growth
Protected Forests
Existing Highways
Chapter
Exploring the Ambiguiti es of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
YAVUZ SULTAN SELIM BRIDGE
NORTHERN MARMARA HIGHWAY
Bid went out June 2013
Bid went out June 2013
Opening 2015
$2.3 billion including bridge
8 driving lanes
414 km
2 railways
5,000 ha deforestation
50 m wide
Consequences
13
1400 m in span 150,000 people corssing/day Consequences
GENERAL INFORMATION All projects realized in a Built-Operate-Transfer Mode 2011: Centralizng of planning authorities enabled projects Violated Laws, Plans and Conventions Masterplan and Environmental Plan Several laws on the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage Turkish Convention Convention of Montreux Consequences Increasing real-estate prizes Possibly real-estate oversupply Population increase to 20 million people Legend Increase of urban sprawl
Deforestation
Drastic population growth
Deterioration of agricultural land
Endangering water ressources
Endangering aquatic ecosystems
14
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: Sulukule
Case Study: Sulukule
regeneration projects with the right of expropriation in deteriorated historic areas and zones of degeneration
In regards to government’s new policies, plans for new
(Uysal 2012, p. 14). A series of historical neighborhoods
mega projects and the terms of ‘City Marketing’, poor
were declared as renewal areas by the authorities just
neighborhoods and ‘Gecekondu’ areas became a tar-
after the introduction of the law, including Sulukule
get for urban regeneration projects. In June 2005 the
(Ingın, İslam 2011, p. 126). Sulukule had a complex and
‘Law 5366’ passed, which became the main legal back-
variable process with different stakeholders and its
ground for urban regeneration in Turkey. The law au-
conflicts and clash of power (see Figure 8).
thorized municipalities to implement large scale urban
Sulukule was located in historical peninsula, next to its
Sulukule Platform meetings with Municipality, Turkish Parliament, European Parliament
Sulukule Association of Advancement of Roman Culture and Solidarity hold a press conference Sulukule is an Urban Renewal Project
TOKI signed the contract
Demolitions began in Sulukule
2005 June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov
Law 5366
Sulukule Platform was founded
Sulukule Platform
Citizens
Professionals *Planners, architects *Academics *Researchers
Figure 8: Sulukule. Actors
Institutions *Local *International
Government *Central - TOKI *Municipalities *District councils
Investors
Case Study: Sulukule
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
15
defense walls. Sulukule was inhabited by the Romani
acteristics in urban footprint. This traditional neighbor-
people for centuries and was chosen as the first renew-
hood had narrow streets, gardens, squares and foun-
al site in Istanbul (Çiftçioğlu 2009). Its history and ethnic
tains and courtyard house structure, which provided
character created its identity in the historical city cen-
the opportunity to independent families to relate with
ter. After 1990 the entertainment houses, which was
each other (see Figure 10). Beside cultural and social
the main economic working field, were closed. After-
heritage, physical characteristics were important com-
wards the area ruled over mostly by informal economy
ponent of this areas identity.
and high level of poverty. Beside unstable structure problems, it had a special typology for physical char-
Legal proceeding for stay of evictions UNESCO visited Sulukule Flats in Taşoluk were completed
TOKI Project constructions Large scale demolitions
Last house was demolished
Oct Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Municipality crews marked the houses
Project is cancelled
Professionals Second Phase
Government
Citizens Initial Phase Institutions
Figure 9: Sulukule. Process Diagram
b a l a n ce d
Investors
16
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: Sulukule
Figure 10: Street view before demolitions had started
Sulukule Renewal Project Process
the local municipality started exerting a strong pres-
The urban renewal project for Sulukule was developed
sure on Sulukule low-income inhabitants. In a context
by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Fatih (district)
of informal economy, and under the imminent threat of
Municipality and TOKİ. The purpose of this project was
losing their homes, many of the residents accepted the
‘fix’ informality by formalizing the neighborhood in
initial small offer from TOKI (Uysal 2011, p. 15). ‘Step by
terms of three dimension; socio-cultural patterns and
step, the Romani people living there have been force-
lifestyles; an informal economy; and spatial, physical
fully evicted or manipulated to leave their livelihoods,
characteristics (Ingın, İslam 2011, p. 127).
and their departure is followed by ruthless demolitions
According to ‘Fatih Municipality’ this project was a par-
throughout the area (Çiftçioğlu 2009)’.
ticipative process, which included all the social aspects
As a reaction this project was objected by profession-
and dimensions. It was repeatedly emphasized by Fatih
als, artists, academics, researchers and locals. Local
Municipality that, there won’t be any exclusion. Howev-
resistance formed as reaction to the urban renewal
er with the recently acquired legal authority to execute
project. In June 2006 Sulukule Roman Culture Develop-
expropriations within a period of three months even
ment and Solidarity was founded and afterwards on Ju-
when no agreement was reached (Law 5162 /2004),
ly-August 2006 as a result of cooperation and solidarity
Sulukule Platform
Case Study: Sulukule
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
NGOs (Sulukule Association of Advancement of Romani Culture, the Human Settlements Association)
Locals in Sulukule
Independent activists (professionals, artist, academics, researchers)
The Chamber of City and Regional Planners The Chamber of Architects Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects Independent researchers, social workers and professionals
Media
17
Informing the public, what is happening, why is happening
STOP (Autonomous Planners without Limits)
Alternative approach Sustainable Sulukule
As a Mediators between different groups
Romani director Tony Gatliff Manu Chao Gogol Bordello International Artist and Musicians Support
Domestic Support
Unesco Helsinki Citizens Assembly, European Roma Rights Centre Scholars from University of London College International Support
Figure 11: Sulukule Platform. Actors
process between different institutions was an intensive
cess. For an example ‘40 Days 40 Nights Sulukule’ event
resistance, demonstration and debate against this proj-
managed to stop for a while all demolitions and sales of
ect (Çetingöz 2008, p. 28) emerged as an opposition.
houses. With this event sensitivity in public opinion for
In March 2007 Sulukule Platform was founded, which is
the demolitions and the restoration process was cre-
very disciplined and multi-actor, with a dynamic forma-
ated and it was stated that a contributive planning ap-
tion, and it has been actively involved in urban renewal
proach which is sustainable and where the local people
processes realized in Sulukule (Ingın 2008b, p. 3) (see
may take place in is required (Ingın 2008a, p. 15). Alter-
Figure 11). ‘This platform defends that the protection
native approach for sustainable Sulukule by STOP (Au-
is not limited only to the extent of physical protection,
tonomous Planners without Limits), which considered
but is a integrated process considering all cultural, so-
the social dimension, was suggested by this evolution.
cial and economic elements, and it advocates that all
Sulukule Platform didn’t succeed to preserve the hous-
relevant local, central and international actors should
ing stock in Sulukule (see Figure 12). Ambiguous prop-
be involved in the process (Ingın 2008b, p. 3)’. Several
erty rights and legal and bureaucratic obstacles lim-
meetings, public events and campaigns were organized
ited Sulukule Platfrom’s actions. Lack of wide political
by this platform in according to stop this eviction pro-
support due to ethnic prejudices and the conservative
18
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: Sulukule
Figure 12: View during the demolitions
Figure 13: Present Apperance of Sulukule with TOKİ buildings
character of the Fatih district restrained the social base
cial awareness, Sulukule after three years demolishing
(Uysal 2012, p. 19).
process was completely destroyed. Sulukule resistance
Through the evictions, and due to the tries from the
was the widest urban social movement in this context
residents of getting a voice in the process, a campaign
against governments’ enforcements, which also restrict
of criminalization was performed from the local au-
the private life. In this sense Sulukule Process has sig-
thorities. Not only a new criminal code was set in which
nificant meaning for social movement’s history in Is-
gecekondu construction was defined as a criminal act
tanbul. As a reaction against long going government’s
listed under ‘Crimes against the Environment’ and
policies and decisions, in May 2013 we were witnessed
‘Causing Construction Pollution’ punished by five years
of the Gezi Protest.
in prison (Kuyucu et al. 2010, p. 1484) but association
The demolition of Sulukule gecekondu intensified the
of gecekondu population with crime was another gov-
economic, social and cultural vulnerability of the origi-
ernmental action to support TOKI interventions (AGFE
nal population, as they were forced to relocate into Ta-
2009, p. 14).
soluk district, 40 kilometers away from the city (Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission
Sulukule Renewal Project Product
to the Historic Areas of Istanbul 2008, p. 81). Consecu-
All in all, the tragic results of this process were compre-
tively, due to the loss of income, based on an informal
hensible. After 3 years demolitions finished on Septem-
economy structure rooted in Sulukule, people relo-
ber 2009 and TOKİ constructions began on 2010. This
cated into TOKI’s social housing blocks are experienc-
new project was targeting higher income groups (see
ing a second wave of evictions, being ‘forced to leave
Figure 13). The project was cancelled from city council
the TOKI blocks because they could not afford to pay
in 2012, due to accepting this project was not appro-
the rent, building fees or other costs’ (AGFE 2009, p.
priate for common good, which also shows the prob-
21) nor adapt to the living conditions and most of the
lematic development pattern in Istanbul. Even though
evictees returned to areas near their old neighborhood
there were large scale and diverse solidarity and so-
(Çiftçioğlu 2009).
Case Study: Sulukule
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
19
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: santralistanbul
Case Study: santralistanbul
18 disparate public-private partnership aiming to redevelop the formerly industrial Golden Horn area. Among
During the 1980s, many sectors of the Turkish econo-
these projects was the conversion of the Silahtarağa
my were liberalized, opening the door to private and
Power Plant into a gallery named santralistanbul (see
foreign investment for the first time. (see Figure 6, p.
Figure 16). The project was planned as a big multi-
10-11) Laws liberalizing the real estate market and the
purpose campus to “eventually house university class-
encouragement of private investment in cultural devel-
rooms and departments, a Museum of Energy, a public
opment, set the stage for a series of projects forming
library, a park, multiple cinemas, a dance hall, open air
the Golden Horn Cultural Valley initiative, a group of
performance spaces, a multipurpose tent, restaurants,
Clearance of the banks
Foundation of Bilg University
Law for privatisation of universities
Rea Gol Vall
Idea to transform Silahtarağa into a cultural venue
Idea san Bilg
santralistanbul
Citizens
Professionals
Figure 14: santralistanbul. Actors
Institutions *Bilgi Foundation
Investors *Laureate Inc.
Government *National Government *Eyüp Municipality
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
Law No. 2634 on the Encouragement of Tourism
1997
20
Case Study: santralistanbul
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
21
a shopping street, and artists’ residences” (Smith 2007,
foundation in 1996. From its inception, the young uni-
online). The 118,000 sq m campus was thought to host
versity worked to position itself as an intellectually
1,000 residents and have a capacity of 1.5 million visi-
serious and high-class institution, attracting scholarly
tors per year (Smith 2007, online).
personnel from around the world and holding conferences on politically explosive issues such as the Kurdish
santralistanbul Process
question or the Armenian genocide (Unknown 2005;
Liberalization also made possible the creation of the
Alemdaroglu 2011). Bilgi also invested a great deal of
main player in santralistanbul’s development: Bilgi Uni-
capital into the establishment of campus building proj-
versity, a private university established as a non-profit
ects in Istanbul, including a development partnership
First collaboration between Laureate Inc. and Bilgi University
Municipality Professionals
National Government Second Phase
Citizens
Investors Institutions
Figure 15: santralistanbul. Process Diagram
b a l a n ce d
Initial Phase
2014
2013
2010
2009
2008
2006
2005
2011
Closing of santralistanbul art gallery
Opening santralistanbul
2004
2003
2002
2001
Erdoğan becomes Prime Minister
2000
1999
1998
a for ntralistanbul by gi Foundation
Silahtarağa transferred to Bilgi Foundation for 20 years
2007
alization of the lden Horn Cultural ley Project
Auction of Bilgi’s art collection
Laureate fully takes over Bilgi University
2012
Law No. 5225 on the Encouragement of the Cultural Investment and Initiatives
gi
22
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: santralistanbul
Figure 16: Transformed power plant santralistanbul
to renovate a former power plant into the santralistan-
American for-profit education company Laureate, Inc.,
bul gallery (Alemdaroglu 2011). The idea for the gallery
a transaction which some observers close to the uni-
already floated since the 1980s, was eventually devel-
versity saw as a very disappointing trade-off of inde-
oped by Oğuz Özerden, the director of Bilgi Foundation
pendence for financial stability and control by outside
in cooperation with Erdoğan, who was the mayor of
investors (Fein, Redden 2013; Kimes, Smith 2014). After
Istanbul at that time. The project was realized, when
its takeover by Laureate, Inc., Bilgi University shifted its
Erdoğan was Prime Minister of Turkey and was opened
institutional focus from the humanities to vocational
in 2007 (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 527).
and engineering training. In 2012, the modern art gal-
Although it is difficult to find information on the exact
lery portion of the santralistanbul campus was shut
sequence of events, an unpublished paper indicates
down to make room for more classrooms – and in 2013,
that Bilgi University’s costly investment in santralis-
the university began to sell off its collection of modern
tanbul contributed to a financial bottleneck which, by
Turkish art, estimated at a value of $7 million (Kimes,
2006, seriously threatened the viability of the institu-
Smith 2014).
tion (Alemdaroglu 2011). Bilgi was able to save itself from financial overextension by partnering with the
Case Study: santralistanbul
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
23
santralistanbul Product:
of a lack of local economic embeddedness and the
Evaluating the santralistanbul project through the lens
long-term viability of the institution itself. From a lo-
of sustainability, the findings are strikingly disappoint-
cal perspective, only few local shops and the taxi com-
ing on two different levels. On a local level, the project
panies profit from the increased tourist traffic and the
never truly engaged with the local context of the Eyüp
Bilgi students’ daily purchases. More globally, within its
Municipality; at best, it was a foreign body inserted into
lifetime, santralistanbul did manage to attract tourists,
Eyüp, lacking in both truly positive or negative conse-
bring in well-known foreign artists and function as a
quences for its neighbors. As a cultural flagship proj-
platform for international debates. However, the insti-
ect, primarily intended to shape Istanbul’s global im-
tution’s recent implosion calls many common assump-
age and developed at great cost to both the public and
tions of contemporary urban design into question. In
private institutions involved, the gallery santralistanbul
pursuit of the fabled “Bilbao effect” of cultural develop-
was only briefly able to fulfill its lofty ambitions before
ment – even taking the Tate Modern as its blueprint –
quietly closing its doors in a process that is truly shock-
Bilgi University overextended itself to the point of near
ing in its lack of transparency.
destruction and lost its institutional independence to a
Generally, it seems that ecological issues have not
for-profit company which increasingly stands accused
been specifically considered in the scope of the proj-
of being more interested in its global bottom line than
ect. Since santralistanbul is embedded in the Golden
the success of its students, the quality of its educational
Horn Cultural Valley Project, it appears that certain
offerings, or the health of individual institutions under
landscape-architectural projects were especially de-
its umbrella. The 2013 sale of santralistanbul’s modern
signed to deal with the ecological improvement of the
art collection provides a meaningful indication of a lack
Golden Horn Area. Also the clearance of the banks of
of sustainable economic thinking on Laureate’s part.
the Golden Horn in the 1980s was ecologically argued
Perhaps more damningly, as Bilgi sells off its art collec-
with the poor water quality of the strait. With the relo-
tion, the university happens to be on a course of rapid
cation of industries and the razing of the squatter hous-
growth, a strategy the university’s chairman explains
ing, the aim of upgrading the water quality was already
thusly: “If you want to go to Wall Street one day, you
achieved (Baycan-Levent 2003, p. 15). This feeds the
need to have a good story” (Kimes 2014, p. 14).
assumption that with the improvement of water qual-
The political sustainability of santralistanbul is a simi-
ity and the landscape-architectural projects along the
larly fraught topic. The gallery never had a strong con-
waterfront, there was no further consideration of eco-
nection to the adjacent neighbourhoods of Eyüp, for
logical issues in the realization of projects like santral-
highly politicized reasons. Since santralistanbul was
istanbul.
developed by the Turkish central government, the
Economically, santralistanbul serves as a particularly
project did not take the opinions of the religious-con-
disastrous example of the ways a cultural flagship proj-
servative population and municipality in Eyüp into ac-
ect of international relevance can fail, both in terms
count (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 528). Santralistanbul was
24
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Case Study: santralistanbul
implemented like a foreign body into the existing fabric
to the filing of complaints against loud music and alco-
and eventually made the municipality work against it,
holic beverages sold at a festival held at santralistanbul
by not including the project into their strategic plans
(Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 528). The program of the cam-
and trying to prevent any synergies between the neigh-
pus is in direct contrast to the religious-conservative
bourhoods and the campus. Furthermore, a project
orientation of the local population, which remains a
initiated by the Bilgi Foundation in collaboration with
cause of conflict between Bilgi University students and
local actors to develop a cultural-educative program
Eyüp locals. Still, the implementation of the campus can
for an adjacent avenue to bring residents and the cam-
be seen as a way of preserving cultural heritage, since
pus into dialogue, did not succeed since the plan was
the old Silahtaraga power plant is one of the last relics
not supported by the Eyüp municipality (Bakbaşa, Töre
of the Ottoman industrial past of the Golden Horn. Un-
2013, p. 528).
fortunately, it is unclear whether the power plant is still
The political dimension of the project becomes clear by
open to the public for visits since being converted into
looking at the opening ceremony, which was delayed
a classroom space for Bilgi University.
for six months so that Prime Minister Erdogan could attend and it was held a few days before a meeting with the EU to discuss Turkey’s cohesion. With that santralistanbul becomes an instrument for the national government’s purposes, by ignoring local actors (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 527). Culturally, santralistanbul had a brief successful run in hosting large events and high quality exhibitions which were accompanied by critical scientific research (Smith 2007). It attracted people from all over the world and – in its day – got quite a bit of attention on the international art scene. However, the sale of its modern art collection has caused a small scandal, not least because Turkey’s Ministry of Art and Culture approved the liquidation of the contemporary art collection on the basis of a valuation scheme which considers older art to be the most valuable – a questionable set of decisions that suggests a lack of support for today’s Turkish artists (Kortun 2013). In addition, the local population was never involved in the santralistanbul events and processes on the campus, which in the past lead
Conclusion
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
25
Conclusion
the living conditions of the dwellers. It was exclusively
After examining the context of urban development in
used by the local authorities as a way ‘to increase the
Istanbul and taking a closer look at two case studies,
value of the land for private speculation by removing
the report will conclude by placing the case studies into
the existing community and historic urban form’ (Ingin
the context of contemporary urban design, and reex-
et al. 2011, p. 129), relocating the inhabitants of those
amining the question of the possibilities for quality ur-
areas to public housing blocks in the periphery (AGFE
ban design in a contested social and political environ-
2009, p. 21), and therefore speculate with public land,
ment.
resulting in what can be considered as a “state-led” gentrification.
Sulukule
Sulukule had a unique and unusual structure in ur-
The evictions and demolition process in the informal
ban life with all this dimensions, such as informal rent
neighborhood of Sulukule were not only a result of a
agreements, common courtyard systems, which also
real-state development motivation under the scope of
has a reflection of social-cultural dimension. Instead of
neoliberal policies, but in terms of urban design, it was
enforcing top-down planning, urban interventions sup-
also a consequence of a modernist-inspired approach.
posed to occur in terms of democracy and participation
Following the modernist renewal policy that has been
and include local needs. It is required that the preserva-
used in nearly all similar scenarios through the world
tion must be considered as a preservation of integrity
(Mukhija 2011, p. 576), in Sulukule, a strategy of infor-
of social, cultural and physical organism, then it is possi-
mal settlement clearance and relocation of their inhab-
ble to mention about a sustainable and healthy preser-
itants into newly created public housing projects was
vation (Ingın 2008a, p. 18). The ethnic cultural structure
implemented by a top-down program restricted to the
and solidarity culture in Sulukule is also important part
transformation of the physical space. The local authori-
of the Historical Peninsula’s cultural mosaic, for that
ties – allowed by the progressively empowerment of
reason preservation of the cultural sustainability has
governmental actors like TOKI – put in force an urban
a significant meaning in a wider context (Architectural
renewal project that lacked of considering the cultural,
and Planning Report Group 2008, p. 7).
social, economic and environmental characteristics of
Under this unbalanced situation in favor of the inter-
the neighborhood (Balaban 2008, p. 252) and which
est of the local government, the strong confrontation
was conducted under a centralistic and authoritarian
between neoliberal power forces (see Figure 17) and
model with neither participation nor option for dia-
the self-made daily city of Istanbul’s inhabitants de-
logue for the inhabitants; leaving the process only as a
rived from the logical response from an urban design
political intervention based on market conditions (Er-
perspective. Pursued by the local citizens, professionals
bas et al. 2013, p. 590).
and activists in the streets and in court, right-to-the-
Consequently, as other renewal projects in Istanbul,
city movements started working with the minorities
Sulukule Renewal Project was never meant to improve
and building interconnections between the different
26
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
Conclusion
Municipality Professionals
Professionals Second Phase
Citizens
Second Phase
Citizens Initial Phase
Institutions
National Government
Government
Investors
b a l a n ce d
Investors Institutions
b a l a n ce d
Initial Phase
Figure 17: Urban Design Process Sulukule
Figure 18: Urban Design Process santralistanbul
groups to find alternatives for the original Sulukule
specific political context of Turkey and Istanbul are also
dwellers even after the demolitions and their displace-
key for a full understanding. The project required a high
ment took place (Uysal 2011, p. 19).
level of support from the central government in order to get the clout and funding needed for its implemen-
santralistanbul
tation. In the process, it became the subject of power
The santralistanbul project was positioned squarely
struggles between central and municipal authorities,
within the neoliberal paradigm of urban design initi-
which prevented the project from having any notice-
ated as a public-private partnership; indeed, it could
able effect upon its local context and undermined
not have been implemented without the liberalization
santralistanbul’s attempts to follow in the footsteps of
of the 1980s, which promoted both the establishment
the museums that inspired it. Now that it is left as a
of Bilgi University as an institution, as well as private
complex of very stylish classrooms for private univer-
investment in cultural and tourist projects. In terms of
sity students, it is to be expected that santralistanbul is
the arguments used to promote the project, its design
even more an island of development than before.
aesthetics and the uses encouraged within the space,
For both Bilgi University and Erdogan’s Istanbul, the ini-
santralistanbul was explicitly patterned upon much-
tial conception of santralistanbul had all the hallmarks
praised cultural development projects such as the
of a mutually beneficial project sure to produce a high
Tate Modern in London or the Guggenheim Museum
level of return on investment. Instead, a project that
in Bilbao. Here, santralistanbul can be understood as
seemed too big to fail, ended in a buyout by foreign
Istanbul’s attempt to complete a very specific type
interests and a selloff of important assets. As similar
of assignment for early-21st century urban design: A
pitches for cultural development projects as trade-
glossy museum with rugged industrial bones, perched
marks of “creative city” development are made world-
upon a long-neglected waterfront and sold as a driver
wide, santralistanbul serves as a warning to contempo-
of everything from renewed tourism, to neighborhood
rary urban planners and designers, to develop a critical
regeneration, to the competitiveness of the entire city
understanding of current and future trends that can
in a global context.
lead to cookie-cutter urban design solutions of ques-
In analyzing the fate of santralistanbul, however, the
tionable worth.
Conclusion
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
27
Synthesis / Conclusion
In terms of the urban design products of Sulukule and
Sulukule and santralistanbul may be only 4 kilometers
santralistanbul, both the new housing for Sulukule’s
away from each other, but they at first seem to belong
residents and the museum santralistanbul are similar
to entirely different worlds of urban design. While the
in their status as design projects which clearly emerge
residents of Sulukule fought to preserve their social
from a type. While replacement housing for Sulukule
worlds and basic standards of living, private founda-
follows a modernist scheme of large-scale housing de-
tions and public funding were pumped into santralis-
velopment, santralistanbul took as its inspiration cul-
tanbul to the tune of over $40 million. However, the
tural institutions embedded within a larger scheme of
two case studies do have key points of comparison in
urban redevelopment, as seen in post-industrial water-
the processes that created them, as well as the end
front areas worldwide. While urban designers world-
products of these processes.
wide can certainly use best-practice projects as blue-
Considering the legality and fairness of each process,
prints for future development, both case studies point
it is clear from the timelines that both processes were
to serious problems with this sort of planning within
made possible by shifts in policy that legalized modes of
the context of sustainability. Residential resettlement
urban design that would not have been possible before
with no consideration for the value of local communi-
the 1980s. Interestingly, both processes included mo-
ty ties, informal economies, or minority cultures, can
ments of protest based upon residents and other ac-
hardly be considered to be in the realm of sustainable
tors (such as university students at Bilgi) whose idea of
urban development. And though the case of santralis-
fairness clashed with the processes – land grabs, reset-
tanbul hardly touches upon such existential questions
tlement, evictions, massive private investment in cul-
of individual and community survival, its six-year rise
tural affairs, the financial takeover of Bilgi – that were
and fall speaks to a troubling gold-rush mentality in a
legal. Basic ideas such as the meaning of land owner-
few of Istanbul’s key sectors: urban design, education
ship or the concept of the university as an institution,
and culture.
were challenged by the overriding power of the state to
Within the case studies, profound difficulties in design
shape laws, events, institutions, and in the end, urban
practice within contested urban spaces are clearly vis-
form itself. Unbalanced relationships between stake-
ible. The basic urban design tasks of creating a balanced
holders, contesting definitions of fairness and legality,
design process and ensuring a sustainable product, re-
and non-inclusive design processes, all serve as a major
quire an environment including a high level of consen-
barrier to designing projects which meet any definition
sus as to the meaning of these terms. As Turkish citizens
of social, political or cultural sustainability; and it is rare
find themselves embroiled in controversies over the
that ecological considerations can be found within pro-
basic meaning of democracy and citizenship, the pro-
cesses that are so marked by power politics, that even
cesses and products of urban design have little chance
the opening of a project such as santralistanbul is timed
to reflect any substantive societal consensus.
to fit in with political considerations.
28
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
References
References Advisory Group on Forced Evictions: AGFE (Ed.) (2009): Mission to Istanbul, Republic of Turkey. June 8 to 11 2009. With assistance of Arif Hasan, Yves Cabannes. Available online at http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/ docs/10008_1_593995.pdf, accessed on 16/03/2014 Altınok, Emre; Cengiz, Hüseyin (Eds.) (2008): The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Spatial Fragmentation and Social Segregation in Istanbul. 44th ISOCARP Congress. Alemdaroglu, Ayça (2011): Selling Futures Across Borders. The Global Trade of Higher Education and ‘For-profitization’ in Turkey. Stanford University (Anthropology Brown Bag Series), checked on 1/3/2014. Architectural and Planning Report Group (2008): The Situation, Role and Identity of Sulukule within The Historical Peninsula. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Bakbaşa, Ceyda; Töre, Evrim (2013): Private Investment in Urban Regeneration Process: The Case of Golden Horn. In: World Applied Sciences Journal 22 (4), 2013, p. 523-531. Available online at http://www.idosi.org/wasj/ wasj22%284%2913/11.pdf, checked on 05/01/2014 Balaban, Osman (2008): Capital accumulation, the state and the production of built environment: The case of Turkey. Ph.D. Middle East Technical University Baycan-Levent, Tüzin (2003): Globalization and Development Strategies for Istanbul, 39th ISoCaRP Congress 2003. Available online at http://www.isocarp.net/data/case_studies/359.pdf, checked on 11/12/2013 Candan, Ayfer Bartu and Kolluoğlu, Biray (2008): Emerging spaces of neoliberalism: A gated town and a public housing project in Istanbul. In: New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, 2008, p. 5-46 Çelik, Özlem (2008): The pattern and process of urban social exclusion in Istanbul. M.Sc. Middle East Technical University. Çetingöz, Metin (2008): Chronology of the Sulukule Urban Renewal Project Process. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul, pp. 26–34. Çiftçioğlu, Kerem (2009): Sulukule; a multi-Stakeholder Participatory Planning Process. In Tansel Korkmaz, Eda Yücesoy Ünlü, Yaşar Adanalı, Can Altay, Philipp Misselwitz (Eds.): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. Enlil, Zeynep Merey (2011): The Neoliberal Agenda and the Changing Urban Form of Istanbul. In International Planning Studies 16 (1), pp. 5–25. Erbas, A. Erdem and Erbil Tansel (2013): Neoliberal challenges and practices of urban regeneration projects in Istanbul. In: Real Corp 2013, Rome, 05/2013, p. 587-595 Fein, Paul; Redden, Elizabeth (2013): Going global. Laureate’s growing global network of institutions. In Inside Higher Ed, 10/1/2013. Available online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/10/laureates-growingglobal-network-institutions, checked on 5/1/2014. Ingın, A.Kıyak (2008a): An Evaluation over Civilian Architectural Constructions and Protection at Sulukule Scale. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Ingın, A.Kıyak (2008b): Can Sulukule Platform be a model for the conservation processes in Istanbul? In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Ingin, Aslı Kıyak and Islam, Tolga (2011): The Reordering of a Romany Neighbourhood, p. 125-130
References
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
29
James, Paul (2013): Assessing the Sustainability of Cities. Urban Profile Process, 3/3/2013. Available online at http://citiesprogramme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Urban-Profile-Process-V3.3-Tool-and-Guiding-Paperweb.pdf, checked on 3/7/2014. Karaman, Ozan; Islam, Tolga (2012): On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. In Cities 29 (4), pp. 234–243. Keyder, Çağlar (2005): Globalization a nd Social Exclusion in Istanbul. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29, pp. 124–134. Kimes, Mina; Smith, Michael (2014): Laureate, a for-profit education firm, finds international success (with a Clinton’s help). In The Washington Post, 1/18/2014. Available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ laureate-a-for-profit-education-firm-finds-international-success-with-a-clintons-help/2014/01/16/13f8adde-7ca611e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html, checked on 3/1/2014. Köktürk, Erdal; Köktürk, Erol; Özlüdemir, Tevfik M.; Çelik, R. Nurhan: An Investigation on to ‘Squat and The Exemption of Unauthorized Buildings -Gecekondu’ in Turkey. Korkmaz, Tansel; Yücesoy Ünlü, Eda; Adanalı, Yaşar; Altay, Can; Misselwitz, Philipp (Eds.) (2009): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. Kuyucu, Tuna; Ünsal, Özlem (2010): ‘Urban Transformation’ as State-led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul. In: Urban Studies. 6/2010, pp. 1479-1499 Letsch, Constanze (2012): Crossing the Bosphorus: a bridge too far. In: Tarlabaşı Istanbul 13/01/2012 Available online at http://www.tarlabasiistanbul.com/2012/01/crossing-the-bosphorus-a-bridge-too-far/, checked on 17/12/2013 Manidapour, Ali (1997): Ambiguities of Urban Design. In Town Planning Review 68(3), pp. 363–383. Mukhija, Vinit, (2011). Urban Design for a planet of informal cities. In Banerjee, T., Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (eds.), Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, London (pp: 574-584) Özdemir, Dilek (2010): The role of the public sector in the provision of housing supply in turkey, 1950-2009. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 11/2010, p. 1099-1117 Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul (2008). Available online at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356/documents/, checked on 12/10/2013. Smith, Sarah-Neel (2007): Managing Utopia – Can Santralistanbul realize ist grand ambitions?. In: Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations (ed.): Nafas. Art Magazine, 09/2007. Available online at http://universes-in-universe.org/ eng/nafas/articles/2007/santralistanbul, checked on 07/01/2014 Unknown (2005): Turkish court’s ban of Armenian conference is circumvented. In New York Times, 9/24/2005. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/world/africa/23iht-turkey.html?_r=0, checked on 3/3/2014. Urban Age (Ed.) (2009): Istanbul City of Intersections. London School of Economics. Uysal, Ü. Evrim (2012): An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: The case of Sulukule, Istanbul. In Cities 29 (1), pp. 12–22. Yalçıntan, Murat C.; Erbaş, Adem E. (2003): Impacts of “Gecekondu” on the Electoral Geography of Istanbul. In International Labor and Working-Class History 64, pp. 91–111.
30
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
List of Figures
List of Figures Figure 1:........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Balanced Urban Design Figure 2:........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Evaluaiting Sustainability (Created by the authors via James, Paul (2013): Assessing the Sustainability of Cities. Urban Profile Process, 3/3/2013. Available online at http://citiesprogramme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Urban-Profile-ProcessV3.3-Tool-and-Guiding-Paper-web.pdf, checked on 3/7/2014) Figure 3:........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Urban footprint between 1950-2010 (Created by the authors via the poster from ‘İstanbul 1910-2010 kent, yapılı çevre ve mimarlık kültürü’ exhibition) Figure 4:........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Gecekondu formation process (Created by the authors with the data derived from AGFE, 2009; and Keleş and Payne, 1984, cited in Çelik, 2008 ) Figure 5:........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Number of Gecekondus in relation to Istanbul population according to different sources (Created by the authors with the data derived from AGFE, 2009; and Keleş and Payne, 1984, cited in Çelik, 2008) Figure 6:................................................................................................................................................................. 10-11 Evolution of the legal framework in Turkey. Legislation empowering TOKI (Data derived from AGFE, 2009; Erbas et al. 2013) Figure 7:................................................................................................................................................................. 12-13 The Northern Marmara Highway Project (Created by the authors via Korkmaz, Tansel; Yücesoy Ünlü, Eda; Adanalı, Yaşar; Altay, Can; Misselwitz, Philipp (Eds.) (2009): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. p. 3-4) Figure 8:...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sulukule. Actors Figure 9:...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Sulukule. Process Diagram Figure 10:.................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Street view before demolitions had started (Karaman, Ozan; Islam, Tolga (2012): On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. In Cities 29 (4), p. 240) Figure 11:.................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Sulukule Platform. Actors Figure 12:.................................................................................................................................................................... 18 View during the demolitions (http://i.sabah.com.tr/sb/galeri/yasam/2396/58470_d.jpg, accesed: 08.02.2104) Figure 13:.................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Present Apperance of Sulukule with TOKİ buildings (source: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/29759110, accesed: 15.02.2104)
List of Figures
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul
31
Figure 14:.................................................................................................................................................................... 20 santralistanbul. Actors Figure 15:.................................................................................................................................................................... 21 santralistanbul. Process Diagram Figure 16:.................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Transformed power plant santralistanbul (http://www.emrearolat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/santral.jpg, accessed: 25.03.2014) Figure 17:.................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Urban Design Process Sulukul Figure 18:.................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Urban Design Process santralistanbul
Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul Berlin. 31.03.2014