Diversity of Gentrification in İstanbul Case Studies: Galata and Tarlabasi Merve Gokahmetoglu MSc Architectural and Urban Design
Everyday Cultures Assignment 2012-2013 Semester 2
Cities need to change; as a result the contemporary city is in a constant state of renewal. The question I raise here is in what way this renewal should be achieved. In this study I will discuss the gentrification of two historic sites in Istanbul. The aim of this study will be to examine the inner-city diversity of gentrification and its causes. Gentrification –comes from gentry+fy; simply defined as the transformation of a workingclass or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential or commercial use. (Lees and others, 2010; xv) Zukin describes gentrification with; the conversion of socially marginal and working-class areas of the central city to middle-class residential use, reflects a movement, that began in the 1960s, of private market investment capital into downtown districts of major urban centres. (Zukin, 1987; 129) On the other hand, it is better to keep in mind that there are several conflicts related to the gentrification. It is no longer serving just for renewal of the neighbourhood. It needs to fulfil the aspirations of the government in a global context. ‘Neoliberal urban policy, now expresses the impulses of capitalist production rather than social reproduction’ (Lees and others, 2008; 163) Calling it ‘urban regeneration’ or promising better living conditions for the people displaced will not change the inability of the process in terms of the humanistic values. Especially in Istanbul, high expectations of the government and aim of creating an ‘ideal city’, a shining star, a European Centre of Culture will be enough to ignore the inconvenience of class removal. İstanbul is continually attempting to compete with other major cities within Europe and as a result an endless stream of Hilton hotels are constructed alongside renovated facades to provide for the increased tourism which the authority hopes to achieve. ‘A-new geo-economic competition has arisen between cities of which gentrification within cities is central strategy’. (Smith, 2008; 19) Case studies: Tarlabası and Galata Tarlabası is a neighbourhood in the Beyoglu district of Istanbul. It is only five minutes away from Istiklal Street in Taksim Square which is one of the most popular locations in the European side of the city. Most of the people may name this central street as the heart of the cultural and artistic activity in all of Istanbul. The only thing that divides this neighbourhood from Istiklal Street is the large four lane road known as Tarlabası Boulevard. Istiklal Street is flanked by the aforementioned Tarlabası and the Galata (popular for its artistic and intellectual inhabitants). These two locations will be my case studies with their different contributions to the understanding of ‘gentrification’. Case Study 1 :Galata Example Galata is situated on the shores of Golden Horn on the Bosphorous and first appears in the history in the Late Antiquity era as a region which is surrounded by the city walls. The area flourished in the 12th century with Genoese’s settlement creating an expansive economy around the harbour. Until the 18th century, this area was enclosed by the city walls.
According to Islam, Nur Akın explains the expansion of the city out of the city walls ‘with the construction of the new embassies. Region starts to be the living quarters of the non-Muslims and Levanters’.(Islam,2003; 55) In 19th century Galata shore turned to an important trading district as a result of the harbour for the inhabitants of Pera (Istiklal Street and its environs). From 1923, the changing political conditions of the country obligated the flight of nonMuslims and Levanters from the region. ‘After the big rural to city migration wave, abandoned shops of the minorities turned to the residents of immigrants’, ethnic variety of the new occupants gave the final phase to Galata as a tenement district. (Islam, 2003; 68)
Two Phases of Galata’s Gentrification ‘Gentrification was seen more immediately in architectural restoration of deteriorating housing and the clustering of new cultural amenities in urban core’. (Zukin, 1987; 129) Galata’s gentrification was not immediate, ‘it proceeded at a slower pace than other gentrifying neighbourhoods in Beyoglu’. (Islam, Enlil, 2006; 2). We can examine the gentrification of Galata under two phases; ‘In the early 2000s, gentrification was proceeding on a level somehow between its early and middle stages in Galata’. (Islam, 2003; 69) Then, ‘the process has recently gained a new momentum and gentrification entered a new phase’ (Islam, Enil, 2006; 2). If we take a closer look to gentrification in general, we can clearly see deteriorating buildings which have never seen restoration for decades - causing a big gap between the estate prices in comparison to the neighbourhoods. According to Smith, ‘this gap –rent gap- is most likely to occur in areas experiencing a sufficiently large gap between actual and potential land values’. (Smith, 1987; p.464) Although this rent gap was one of the main reasons that made Galata attractive to the gentrifiers, since in a deteriorated area, buying a historically valuable building and renovating was economically more viable than constructing a new building, it was not the only reason. Rent-gap played a more substantial role at the second phase of gentrification. ‘Although there is certainly overlap between various arguments and few authors confine themselves to a single explanation, four major explanatory emphases of inner city gentrification may be identified from literature’. (Ley, 1986, p.522) These aspects of Ley’s are demographic change, housing-market dynamics, the value of urban amenity and economic base. Unlike Smith, Ley’s understanding argues social as well as the economic causes of gentrification, giving a broader perspective on the subject. Although Smith believes that ‘economic hypothesis of Ley’s has the strongest relationship with gentrification’, (Smith, 1987; 462) the first of the two phases of gentrification within Galata can be better outlined through demographic change and housing-market dynamics. As a start, ‘a couple of artists started to buy or rent houses and opened their ateliers in this neighbourhood. Rather than the minimal rents, convenience of the high ceiling buildings for their ateliers made Galata a more desirable choice’. (Islam, 2003; 68) These artists and intellectuals were the pioneers of the period. Therefore we can clearly say that Galata’s gentrification process started as a demographic structure or individual choice as a result the process became less invasive and at a slower pace.
Before restoration
After restoration
What changed? After a decade, process began to change and a clearer political act was formed. As Zukin asserted (1987), ‘both home owners and renters contribute to the rise of the property values’. Before gentrification, the homeowners are obligated to keep rent at a low rate as the residents of these areas generally have low incomes. However, new middle class brought the potential rent increase. ‘Their residential choices, amenities that clustered around them and their high educational and occupational status’ (Zukin, 1987; 131) all attributed to the social, physical and economic changes. Realization of high investment return took the attention of the estate agents and people who sees the region as an investment funds. Moreover, second phase took a different shape with the participation of municipality and both national and international investors. After Istanbul was ranked first in the list of cities in the survey made by Urban Land Institute (ULI)’ (Islam, Enlil, 2006; p.3) foreign investors gained interest in Galata. ‘Conflict over zoning laws, historic district designations, and property tax assessments indicate how important may be the state’s role in defining the economic and social value of an urban area’. (Zukin, 1987; p.132) In last ten years, local municipality with the help of new legislations started to concentrate more on Galata. They started to regenerate the social and cultural activities which ‘have been tried by pioneer gentrifiers –artists, authors, young professionals- at the beginning of the process. (Sen, 2006; p.102) Higher tax and better quality housing was key to the governments incentive. At this point, I would like to talk about conflicts associated with gentrification through nongentrifiers –people which had been forced/will force to move directly/indirectly. Despite the fact that there is less governmental intervention as mentioned above–which can reduce the negative effects of the process and keep it more humanistic, displacement is the most important issue here. Three years ago, while I was working on a project in Galata, I had a chance to talk with the local shop owners and old people who had been living there for decades. ‘This change can seem nice, but at the end we will not be able to live here’ exclaimed an old carpenter as he hammered the broken puppet as he continued, ‘most of my neighbours are tenants like me, they are happy with the changing face of Galata because of the economic revival. However, when the day comes they will not able to afford the rents, even the ones who are the homeowners will be alien to new environment.’ This statement was a clear summary of the Galata’s future atmosphere. He also explained with a bittersweet smile on his face that he was living in this neighbourhood since he was five, he attended the weddings of almost all his neighbours, these streets contain more than just the peeling paintwork of his old shop front, they hold his memories. Another younger shop owner who was living in his flat as a tenant was telling how the rents of the flats were increasing rapidly in the last five years. The flat above his shop was twice more expensive by comparison to the last year. And he added ‘you need to be so rich to live in here’. He did not have to tell about how much he is worried about his future –will he manage to pay the rent, will his landlord raise his rent. All these concerns could be read from his face.
Carpenter / 2010
Islam and Enlil raises 3 reasons for resistance to the displacement which are; economic advantageous, logistical benefits and habits and social relations. (Islam, Enlil, 2006) Unfortunately, it seems like even in Galtata example which is one of the best inner-city gentrification references in Istanbul there is no way to keep its heterogeneity, ethnic variety. Still we can briefly say that Galata is at its maturing period. However, it is clear how it continues/will continue. Even the pre-gentrification residents can stand the higher rent expectations of landlords; can they survive within the social alienation? How can they avoid suppression by the gentrifiers? If we come back to Tarlabası, it is similar to Galata in terms of it is historic background until the mid-70s. After that, the processes they had been through changed these districts in different ways.
Case Study 2: Tarlabasi Example Before focusing on Tarlabasi, it can be helpful to explain a little bit about the transformations in Beyoglu (the region which contains both Tarlabasi and Galata). Journalist Ulus Atayurt examines some governmental and private sector interventions -first, in 1988 demolishing more than 350 historical building to create a big Boulvard ‘Tarlabası Boulvard’ and cutting the organic tie of Tarlabası with Beyoglu, then in 1988, moving business centres to the north side of the city with the construction of a second bridge on Bosporus, and finally in 1990 pedestrianizing the Istıklal Street. (Atayurt, 2009) All these changes slowly labelled Beyoglu as an entertainment and tourist district. Therefore Tarlabası could not escape from this wave. It had to be convenient to this environment. Following this the ‘Great Tarlabası Renewal Project’ began. Earliest settlement in Tarlabasi goes back to the 1500s. The construction of the French Embassy sparked the development of the area. In 18th century, Istikal Street and its urban environs were known as ‘Pera’ was becoming increasing renowned as a centre for entertainment and business. Tarlabası became the residential artery for Pera’s working population who were mostly Levanters and non-Muslims. ‘The construction of a large boulevard in the late 1980s cut the connection and increased the disparity between Tarlabasi and its immediate surroundings, especially with İstiklal Street, the cultural centre’. (Islam, 2009) This physical disjunction of Taksim Square and Istiklal Street led to a less apparent yet highly charged cultural disjunction. In 1942, introduction of new capital tax affected the economy of the Levanters and non-Muslims who had been living in this area for hundreds of years. At this time Turkey itself was suffering from economic problems. Therefore, owners of houses were obliged to leave their homes. This was the start of the demographic changes. In 1960, with the big migration wave from rural regions to the city, people who mostly came from the northern and central part of the country settled in these abandoned houses. In 1980, 350 historically valuable building under the mayorship of Bedreddin Dalan were demolished. The small Tarlabası Street became a large boulevard flowing into Taksim Square. Finally, as Islam mentioned in his article ’in 1990, another migration wave, this time from eastern Turkey’ (Islam, 2009), gave the final shape to the ethnic diversity of Tarlabası.
Tarlabası is now home to a variety of ethnic origins such as Romanians and Kurds. Today, Tarlabası is a frightening neighbourhood, due to a severe drug, prostitution and crime problem. The district is seen as a place where even police has difficulties entering. While in the day time it is quite active and crowded, at nights it becomes dangerous and silent. Stated Aims Around 20,000 square metres, consisting of 9 blocks and 278 plots, in Tarlabası where declared a regeneration area by the Council of Ministers in February 2006 following a petition from the local municipality. (Islam, 2009) The aim of this regeneration explained through the website of the council: Today, one of the most important and historically valuable areas of Istanbul cannot fulfil the needs of modern life requirements because of the small plots of land, narrow streets, car park problems and bad environmental aspects. With the ‘Great Tarlabası Project’ region is planned to turn to a wealthier, more secure and more inhabitable environment. Again as it stated in the website; this project aims at not only housing renewal, but also cultural and economic advancement. Existing inhabitants will have the privilege to reach these advantages. This website also claims that initiators of the project are Beyoglu Municipality and the land owners. For further information you can also see: < http://www.beyoglubuyukdonusum.com/tarlabasi/detay/Sikca-Sorulan-Sorular/44/167/0> ‘Thanks to intense economic and policy directives from state and federal governments, cities now must be sophisticated entrepreneurs -doing whatever it takes to lure wealthy investors, residents and tourist to town’. (Lees and others, 2008; 165) Non-stated Aims This declaration exhibits the stated goals of the gentrification in the district. On the other hand I would like to discuss about the non-stated aims. With the help of new legislations which allow running a project in protected heritage sites, it is planned to demolish old valuable buildings. The first problem occurs here, instead of restoration, the municipality plans to demolish them as a ‘radical solution’. The Chamber of Architects of Turkey have already challenged this case in an attempt to protect the heritage of the district. Furthermore, as they claimed in the website, the council promised the existing inhabitants the ‘privilege’ of staying within the area. Home owners (only 3 percentage of the whole population) were supposed to get 42 percent of their right to the building. However, policies that will protect the right of the suffered class did not go further than offering a house at the outside of the city. And displaced people will have to pay higher rents in the high rise building blocks which also will be an alien environment for them. These TOKI (housing development administration of Turkey) high-rise building blocks will obtain a very low quality housing which declined in Europe decades ago. TOKI high rise blocks are akin to the outdated ‘Pruitt Igoe’ blocks, popular post war developments throughout Europe. Unfortunately, not a day goes by without a headline like the following in the news:‘Ber family, residents of Istanbul's controversial urban renewal district Tarlabaşı, try to survive in their homes despite municipalities' water access restriction’. (Akoguz and others, 2013) While some families can resist this pressure, some others sold their houses for minimal prices.
Existing view/Tarlabasi/Image 1
Future view /Tarlabasi/Image 2
At this point I would like to discuss about a recent study 'Division Unfolded- Part Two' done by the art students from Mimar Sinan and Marmara Universities. The aim of the work was showing everyday life of Tarlabası inhabitants. Students exhibited their works in the area itself - in an abandoned building- which does not have any doors or windows. They admitted that at the beginning, it was frightening to work in such an area which has a bad reputation. However, residents of the area helped them a lot while cleaning this three storey building, casting the plaster and carrying the materials etc. At the exhibition day, most of the inhabitants came to see the final work; children brought their paintings and clay made sculptures to show to the students. Contribution and support of the inhabitants of the quarter is a crucial point here. Contrary to expectations, these students got a surprisingly good response. Unfortunately, this society is being marginalised through this gentrification process. Their community includes addicted people, criminals and lowest income groups and according to authorities these reasons are enough to send them outside of the city. Instead of trying to improve the existing conditions for example health centres and educational facilities for the community; the process creates a new settlement excluding the existing inhabitants. Change is not radical, just physical; it will not go further than popular urbanism. Because of that fundamental issues will be missing; right of return. People who are displaced should have the right of come back after renewal completed. There is No Way Out! Unfortunately lack of democracy plays the biggest role here; demolishing the grade1 historic buildings without warning the residents, razing the multi-storey buildings to create a single dwelling shows the lawlessness of the process. The future picture of Tarlabası already took its place on the billboards. These pictures show a totally different atmosphere; middle/high class people walking down the streets with their dogs, shopping malls and entertainment facilities are ready to serve etc. Government, local municipality and even in-movers participate to their social exclusion. As Harvey said, bourgeoisie cannot solve the problems. After low income disappear, marginalised society disappear, the district will lose all its colours. Homogenous, gated communities will be created and they will stigmatize the residents that can manage to stay after renewal. As it happened at the other examples, this pressure won’t stop until they remove all diversity. Conclusion Although Galata and Tarlabası have been through different gentrification processes, they are both failing in terms of social reproduction. If we consider both cases through Atkinson and Bridge’s analysis; in terms of displacement through rent/price increases, psychological cost of displacement, homelessness, loss of social diversity(from socially disparate to rich ghettos),(Atkinson, Bridge,2005 ;5) Tarlabası is failing at a greater level. However, aforementioned Galata’s existing inhabitants outline the future perspective of the district which is not a promising sight. Less municipal/governmental responses bring less social divisions. Neither with a direct intervention from authorities nor private sectors (supported by government) creates a rapacious competition. Therefore the residents of the district become the least important aspect within the process.
On the other hand, in terms of historic buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s renovation we can mention about sensibility in Galata. First gentrifiers, -artists, intellectuals and professionals brought their understanding while restoring buildings. Unfortunately, In TarlabasÄą we cannot even talk about the restoration. Authorities have planned to demolish most buildings while promising a more modern way of life. The district is condemned to lose its historic fabric. Gentrification within Tarlabasi is leading to the erasure of its historic fabric as well as its identity through the potential displacement of its people.
Picture by Ecumenopolis/ You can also see the award winning video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6NS_MEQ44> & <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKHy8bjS1pk>
Bibliography Akoguz, Elif Cansu and others, ‘Istanbul Family Struggles Against Gentrification’, BIA News Desk, (2013) < http://bianet.org/english/local-goverment/144408-istanbul-family-strugglesagainst-gentrification> [accessed 15 April 2013] Atayurt, Ulus, ‘Tarlabası’nda Rantsal Kusatma’ BIA News Desk, (2009) <http://www.bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/114481-tarlabasinda-rantsal-kusatma > [accessed 17 April 2013] Atkinson, Rowland& Gary, Bridge, ‘Introduction’, in Gentrification in a Global Context, (Routledge, 2005), pp.5. Islam, Tolga, ‘Istanbul’da Soylulaştırma: Galata Ornegi’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Yıldız Teknik University, 2003), pp. 55-100 < http://www.tolgaislam.com/p/full-publications.html> [accessed 6 April 2013] Islam, Tolga, ‘Tolga Islam Summarises The Development Pressures Threatening One of Istanbul’s Historic Neighbourhoods’, Tarlabasi, LSE Cities, (2009), <http://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/tarlabasi > [accessed 15 April 2013] Islam, Tolga, Enil Zeynep, ‘Evaluating the Impact of Gentrification on Renter Local Residents:The Dynamics Of Displacement In Galata’, Istanbul 42nd ISoCaRP Congress, (2006), pp.1-13 <http://www.tolgaislam.com/p/full-publications.html> [accessed 1April 2013] Lees, Loretta and others, ‘Contemporary Gentrification’, in Gentrification, (Taylor&Francis, 2008), pp.163-193. Lees, Loretta and others, ‘Introduction’, in The Gentrification Reader, ed. by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin Wyly (Routledge, 2010), pp.xi-xix. Ley, David, ‘Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment’, 76vols (Taylor&Francis, 1986) pp.521-535. Sen, Besime,’Kentsel Gerilemeyi Asmada Çeliskili Bir Surec Olarak Soylulaştırma: Galata Ornegi’, (unpublished doctoral thesis, Mimar Sinan University, 2006), pp. 45-55, < http://www.belgeler.com/blg/nt5/kentsel-gerilemeyi-amada-elikili-bir-sre-olaraksoylulatirma-galata-rnei-gentrification-as-a-contradictory-process-to-overcome-urbandecline-the-case-of-galata> [accessed 10 April 2013] Sharon, Zukin, ‘Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core’,13 vols (Annual Reviews, 1987) , pp.129-147. Smith, Neil, ‘Gentrification and Rent Gap’, 77vols (Taylor&Francis, 1987), pp.462-465. Smith, Neil, ‘Evaluation of Gentrification’, in Houses in Transformation: Interventions in European Gentrification, ed. by JaapJan Berg, Tahl Kaminer, Marc Schoonderbeek and Joost Zonneveld (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2008), pp. 15-25.
Images Tarlabasi Image: http://grospouic.wordpress.com/ Galata Image: http://www.istapin.com/galata-kulesi/galata-kulesi-4/ Image 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblackstar/ Image 2: http://www.beyoglubuyukdonusum.com/tarlabasi/detay/FotografGalerisi/39/43/0#prettyPhoto Image 3: http://www.ekumenopolis.net/#/tr_TR Other pictures were taken by me.