The Conflicted City - Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies

The Conflicted City
Hypergrowth, Urban Renewal and
Mass Urbanization in Istanbul
The Conflicted City
Hypergrowth, Urban Renewal and
Mass Urbanization in Istanbul
Carrie Sturts Dossick
Liz Dunn
Ian Fishburn
Natalie Gualy
Kathryn Rogers Merlino
Jason Twill
The Runstad Fellows wish to express sincere appreciatiation
to the following individuals for their supportof this research
program:
Daniel Friedman, George Rolfe, Suzanne Cartwright, Runstad
Center Board of Directors, Melissa Best, AP Hurd, Julia Levitt,
Peter Steinbrueck, Reşat Kasaba, Orhan Esen, Ipek Akpinar,
Ulas Akin, Haluk Sur, Tuna Kuyucu, Yaren Türkoglu, Ibrahim
Baz, Leyla Turanalp, Asu Aksoy, Murat Guvenc, Omer Kanipak
Copyright © 2012
PREFACE
06
INTRODUCTION
08
THE CONFLICTED BUILT CITY: OLD CITY /NEW CITY
14
The 21st Century Republic and the Gecekondu
A Selective Seismic Law
The Case of Sulukule
Tarlabasi, Fener, and Balat
‘Starchitects’ and ‘City Planning’ within Cities
16
18
19
20
22
THE CONFLICTED ECOLOGICAL CITY:
GROWTH CITY / SUSTAINABLE CITY
24
THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEMOLITION OF ISTANBUL’S INNER CITY
NEIGHBORHOODS
SUSTAINABILITY IN ISTANBUL: “THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE”
The Systems of the City
Perspectives on Sustainability
25
28
THE CONFLICTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CITY:
GLOBAL CITY / LOCAL CITY
30
Istanbul to Foreign Investors
The Creative Class of Istanbul
31
33
CONCLUSION: CITY AT A CROSSROADS
36
REFERENCES
40
ENDNOTES
42
WHAT’S THE ROLE OF REAL ESTATE IN NURTURING “CREATIVE
CULTURE” AND LOCAL ENTREPRENEURISM?
PREFACE
In September 2011 the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies at the University of
Washington selected a research fellows group to focus on themes of urbanism, real
estate and sustainable development. This interdisciplinary group consisted of two
graduate students and two professors from the College of Built Environments, and
two local professionals who are leaders in the fields of sustainable development.
The advantage of diverse disciplines was clear from the start as the group
exchanged knowledge and perspectives that included urban and architectural
design, real estate development and finance, construction and engineering,
and historic preservation. The research team focused their studies on the city of
Istanbul, Turkey as a case-study to explore sustainable development within city’s
experiencing hyper-growth and what lessons could be learned there for places like
Seattle, Washington. Through a year long process of research, writing, interviews,
meetings and tours, the consistent topics that emerged amongst our team were
ones of urban renewal, economic and environmental resiliency and the impact of
an emerging generation of young, creative-class entrepreneurs that have been
flocking to this urban center in recent years. This report summarizes our research
over the past year, which included a seven-day intensive trip to this ancient city
on the Bosporus. More specifically, it outlines our observations on critical and
current urban issues (e.g., how issues surrounding land-use, public space and
transportation are affecting the people, buildings, economics and ecology of
Istanbul).
A great deal has been published on Istanbul. Designated as one of the world’s
so-called “mega-cities”, it has been a focus for governments, academics and
practitioners in recent years due to its unprecedented economic growth and
emergence as a new cultural capital of Europe. Our readings delved into Istanbul’s
varying approaches to urban renewal, sustainable development and economic
growth. With a population nearing 14 million and a vast landscape of urban
fabric that was being impacted by change, we narrowed our research to a few
distinct neighborhoods and projects that illustrated our chosen themes. Interviews
were conducted both here in Seattle and in Istanbul with architects, planners,
academics, activists, policy makers, artists and real estate developers to give us
a broad and diverse perspective on current urban growth trends. These included
presentations by some of the city’s primary planners and public-private developers
who are connected with the city’s most powerful political elites.
At the end of the research period, conclusions centered on the economic, political
and urban framework of Istanbul and how it is a city riddled with conflicts: old
versus new, growth versus limits, and global versus local. They are conflicts that
will be crucial for Istanbul to address if it aspires to emerge as a 21st century
success story in sustainable urbanism. As journalist Christopher Torchia states,
“As Turkey strives for global status, its leading city [Istanbul] strains to channel
expansion that threatens its heritage, environment and even its identity.”1 With
explosive population growth, rapid urban expansion, and changing political
leadership, the city’s ecological and social future appears fragile, influenced by
both social and economic pressures. This report explores these pressures through
three distinct lenses: urban renewal; environmental considerations in urban growth;
and the role of a young emerging workforce that is rapidly shaping this city’s future.
6
2012 Runstad Fellows (left to right): Kathryn Rogers Merlino, Ian
Fishburn, Carrie Sturts Dossick, Liz Dunn, Jason Twill, Natalie Gualy
7
INTRODUCTION
With more than half the world’s population now living in cities, humans have
entered what many consider to be the “urban age.” With rapid urbanization and the
evolution of “mega-cities”, the world’s urban areas are facing greater challenges as
we continue into the 21st century. These challenges include the balance of density
and land-use, improved health and livability of dense populations and proper
management of limited ecological resources. Across the globe, there is an ongoing
debate on the potential solutions that cities hold for us in the future and how they
need to evolve to solve a myriad of global crises.
As one of the world’s “megacities,” Istanbul can be regarded as a 21st century
test case for understanding the challenges in planning for rapid population growth
and highly urbanized consumption patterns.2 Parts of the city are among the
densest in the world, while others are characterized by gated sprawl so familiar to
us here in America. With a population nearing 14 million and a total land area of
approximately 1,930 square miles, it has been estimated that, at current growth
rates, the city could have as many as 23 million inhabitants by 2025 Istanbul has
been a consistent magnet for job-seeking rural Turks, and in the past decade, an
emerging creative class of young artists, designers, architects and entrepreneurs
has led to the establishment of the Istanbul Biennale and the city’s nomination
as a European Capital of Culture in 2010.3 With predictions of double-digit
annual economic growth over the next several years, Turkey finds itself relatively
unscathed by the economic crisis that currently grips Europe, and the burgeoning
economy of Istanbul is no doubt fueling this economic miracle.4
Romania
Russia
Black Sea
Istanbul
Greece
Turkey
Mediterranean
Sea
Syria
Egypt
Figure 1: Map
8
However, the past decade or so has introduced new and dramatic challenges to
the melting pot that comprises Istanbul’s population. Two distinct urban trends –
urban renewal and large urban-scale developments by ‘star’ architects- and their
supporting policies are rapidly changing the historic nature of this city at multiple
scales and a frenetic pace, with goals that focus on car ownership and large
scale gentrification style developments. Without any overall framework in place to
manage its tremendous growth, Istanbul is facing incredible social, cultural and
architectural transformations at a vast scale in its current rush to be recognized as
a ‘global’ city.
The city’s historic tapestry is richly woven with images of exotic harems, wealthy
sultans, exquisite mosques and Roman ruins. Throughout the 20th century, this
image has slowly faded to the background as the city has joined the ranks of its
more westernized counterparts. The more traditional views and ways of living
were gradually exchanged for those of a secular, more democratic and westernoriented city focusing on modernization and free enterprise. The result, at least
until very recently, has been a uniquely secular Islamic state, one that has tolerated
a diversity of religious and cultural groups living for the most part peacefully
within the city limits. This transition slowly began to emerge with Kemal Ataturk,
founder of the Turkish Republic in 1923, whose pervasive image can be found in
people’s homes and businesses throughout Istanbul as a constant reminder of his
profound influence over modern Turkish governance and culture. In 1935, when
surnames were introduced in Turkey, he was given the name Atatürk, meaning
‘Father of the Turks’, which represent his influence over the modernization of
what is contemporary Turkey.5 Under his economic and social reforms in the first
quarter of the 20th century, polygamy was abolished; civil, not religious, marriages
were introduced; Islam was removed as the state religion; new western-style
legal codes were instituted and women’s rights continued to change after they
obtained the right to vote and serve in parliament in 1934. In 1923 Ankara replaced
Constantinople as capital city of Turkey and in 1930 Constantinople was renamed
Istanbul – a future sign of the move away from conservative, Islamic values
ushered in by the Ottoman Empire, which had a constant presence in Istanbul
since its invasion of the city in 1453.6
Black Sea
Avrupa Yakası
Anatolia
Marmara Sea
9
Figure 2: Regional Map
While Turkey has always cultivated strong trading relationships with Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East, most recently Istanbul has also become an emerging panregional center of finance and commerce especially for a rapidly growing, young
and ambitious work force. Istanbul took the top global ranking for economic growth
in 2010 according to a Brookings Institution study, as the city’s economy expanded
by 5.5 percent on a per-capita basis, and employment rose an astonishing 7.3
percent between 2009 and 2010.7 As Istanbul’s economic base has continued to
evolve and diversify from the post-industrial manufacturing to professional and
service sector economies, so too have the expectations and needs of a growing
middle class, that find the center city neighborhoods increasingly run-down and out
of sync with their aspirations for a safe, convenient lifestyle. Yet with increases in
traffic that are overwhelming the cities’ transportation system, Istanbul’s leadership
is looking to the city center for new housing options. As a result, the built landscape
of Istanbul’s central neighborhoods - historically diverse and complex - is rapidly
changing to accommodate modern middle class tastes that include car ownership.
As a city, urban organization and codification came relatively late in the 20th
century. It was not until the 1984 Municipal Code was instituted that Istanbul
was an established municipality with privatization of municipal services such as
transportation, housing and natural gas. The Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and
Urban Design Center created to address urban planning in a more systemic way
was only established in 2004.8 As such, Istanbul’s recent development has been
driven mostly by it connections to global economic networks, manifesting itself
into “free-standing stores, multiple establishments scattered throughout the urban
system under a common ownership, and large purpose-built shopping center
developments.”9
mmm
mmmmm
mmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm
2012 Population
m= 1,000,000
10
Estimated 2025 Population
m= 1,000,000
Visitors to the city can now witness a newly minted and increasingly wealthy
professional class that spend their money on luxury cars, shop at urban megamalls and participate unreservedly in the city’s frothy real estate market. It is also
a city with a growing divide between the newly emerging globalized elite and
the urban poor.10 With a population approaching 15 million in the next year, an
increasing percentage of the urban poor find themselves relegated to high-rise
apartments on the city’s periphery, with no surrounding grounds and inadequate
access to transportation, food and other basic necessities. In his 2005 study of
socialization and globalization of the city urbanist Caglar Keyder summarizes the
city’s transformation, which was witnessed firsthand in a startling way:
Most accounts of globalization and urban reconfiguration
start with a picture of an urban fabric whose stability and
balance are disturbed by newly intensified global networks.
These networks penetrate urban life and restructure the
economy, introducing new types of employment and levels
of income commensurate with the wealthier areas of the world,
resulting in new levels of differentiation between those who
become part of the networks and those who are left out. Those
denizens who are included in the networks, these new segments
of the population — the bankers and the young professionals —
acquire globalized consumption habits and lifestyles, seeking
global brand name in upscale shopping malls.11
On the one hand, Istanbul has tremendous inherent assets, starting with its
breathtaking setting on the banks of the Bosporus and the unforgettable character
of the low-slung, densely packed, multi-colored building stock that hugs the
contours of its hills; a complex, rich history based on being the capital of two major
world empires, and the rich cultural heritage that intertwines modern east and west
sensibilities. On the other hand, unchecked development, both formal and informal,
continues to sprawl outward, increasingly along its southern coastline that hugs the
Sea of Mamara and into the ecologically fragile forest region of the north along the
Black Sea. This peripheral development is being spurred by what many consider
to be “warp speed” population and economic growth that is increasing middleclass demand for more space and privacy.12 In spite of, or perhaps because of,
its political and economic evolution under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep
Figure 3: View of Istanbul
11
Tayyip Erdogan, it is not unthinkable that Istanbul could collapse under the weight
of over-scaled investment, population pressure and improper management of its
natural resources. A 2011 documentary called “Ekumenopolis: City Without Limits”
suggests that congestion, real estate speculation and big projects such as a plan
to build a third bridge over the Bosporus are creating a class-bound sprawl lorded
over by politically connected barons of the real estate and construction industries.
Arguably, the recent real estate trends in Istanbul may be viewed as being heavily
influenced by the unsustainable, car-dominant development paradigm of 20th
century America, a harmful ideological export. Indeed, much of what we saw was
reminiscent of the failed mid-20th century experiment of public housing projects
and urban renewal that was enacted in most U.S. cities.
From a Seattle perspective, we observed certain expected and unexpected
parallels: While Seattle takes environmental resource protection as a much more
urgent priority, Seattle and Istanbul are both among a select number of cities
around the globe that escaped the economic downturn relatively unscathed
and therefore, for better or worse, find themselves awash in a sea of global
real estate capital that seems to have little regard for these cities’ working class
maritime histories or existing urban and industrial fabric. In Istanbulites’ quest to
have their city perceived as a modernized “world class metropolis”, they seem
mostly content to pursue an agenda of sameness – in what they build, what they
consume, and how they foster their work force and economy – that puts their most
unique and valuable assets including their distinct urban identity at risk. These two
cities, Seattle and Istanbul, are literally worlds apart, yet with some meaningful
similarities; Istanbul – The Conflicted City – presents many questions that land
close to home. This report presents thoughts on The Conflicted City in three broad
themes; the conflicted built city, the conflicted ecological city, and the conflicted
socio-economic city.
12
13
01
THE CONFLICTED BUILT CITY: OLD CITY /NEW CITY
THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEMOLITION OF ISTANBUL’S INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS
“Above all, we must free ourselves from our tendency to see cities as their
buildings, and remember that the real city is made of flesh, not concrete.” -Ed Glaeser
Much as we have seen happen in American cities since the mid 20th century, cars
are taking over the city of Istanbul. One newspaper reported that traffic is affecting
city and individual life, and that people can easily spend up to three hours a day
in traffic to get to their homes outside the city center.13 This is in part because
as Istanbul’s economic base has continued to evolve and diversify away from
manufacturing to service sector economies, so too has a middle class that finds the
center city neighborhoods increasingly run-down and undesirable. But now, while
expansion is continuing to happen to the west and east, middle class housing is on
the rise in the city center. The prime drivers are large developers, often supported
by the government which is looking to ‘revitalize’ the center city and attract
investment from the growing sector of middle class workers. However, the history
and fabric of these existing houses, along with the inhabitants that live there, often
do not fit with the plans of the city’s leaders or the desires of the new Istanbulite
who is accustomed to the vehicular advantages of the suburb.
Currently, Istanbul is undergoing a massive influx of foreign investment as
economic and political barriers dissolve. With land now considered an economic
commodity and with a relatively nascent real estate industry, new developments are
booming on both sides of the Bosporus.14 Infrastructure projects like the undersea
Marmaray tunnel, new arterial highways, and a proposed third bridge across the
Bosporus strait indicate that transportation linkages to the growing corners of
the city limits are inadequate.15 Independent, suburban, gated communities and
shopping areas, some with world renowned “starchitects” at the design helm, are
being explored at unprecedented scales.16 As a result of this aspirational shift,
the built landscape of Istanbul’s central neighborhoods - historically diverse and
complex - is rapidly changing. Political and economic drivers push development of
housing that will be more attractive to an emerging middle class than the narrow,
densely packed three to six story apartment buildings that currently make up the
14
dense urban fabric at the city core. The most targeted locations (the historical
peninsula and urban core areas with water views and/or access to shopping and
nightlife) are prime real estate for the upper classes, but the existing building stock
does not support the self-image of the new Istanbulites.
This is where the “urban renewal” projects enter, many of which are sanctioned
and administered by TOKI, Turkey’s housing development administration. In
addition to constructing low-income and working-class housing and infrastructure,
TOKI is authorized to prepare and modify zoning plans, expropriate property
and develop financial arrangements for large projects with little to no local public
engagement requirements. With international capital backing development, entire
neighborhoods are being demolished in singular acts, new housing over parking
and car-centered shopping malls constructed – predominantly in the name of
aesthetic and structural rehabilitation of the city, but with little acknowledgement of
existing neighborhood communities. The goal of these plans, which are currently
slated for nearly 50 distinct neighborhoods in the city, is to demolish and rebuild,
and in fact Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan recently made the statement “We will
destroy half of Istanbul’s buildings,” referring to the semi-legal housing that has
mushroomed within the majority of Istanbul’s central city neighborhoods in the last
half a century.17 For the communities who created these existing urban enclaves,
the repercussions of these goals are both social and architectural. Socially they
demolish, rebuild and the resulting gentrification has been at the expense of
longtime culturally diverse inhabitants of the city. Architecturally, historic developed
patterns of both formal and informal typologies are being lost and replaced with
more westernized, bland middle class models.18 The upside of these developments
include better earthquake resistant structures, modernization of water and energy
utility infrastructure, and a return of middle class residents to the city center,
there by reducing long commutes and traffic congestion in the city outskirts. On
the downside, these communities undergo major disruptions and, at times, are
completely displaced making historic, culturally contextual urban fabrics disappear
into the history books.
“WE WILL DESTROY
HALF OF ISTANBUL’S
BUILDINGS.”
17
TURKISH PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN
15
THE 21ST CENTURY REPUBLIC AND THE GECEKONDU
Istanbul’s first wave of urban migration was a workforce that primarily came from
rural Anatolia as early as the mid 19th century. The resulting neighborhoods that
developed, over time, were an informal residential typology called gecekondu, a
housing form self-developed by immigrants who needed housing that was located
near their jobs at industrial sites.19 As the city was busy promoting industrialization
of the city, immigrants were left to do what they wanted as long as the city didn’t
have to pay for it. Urban researcher Orhan Esen describes the gecekondu form:
The genesis of the gecekondu is steeped in myths: As legend
has it, anybody who was able to put up four posts and a roof
overnight was entitled to keep it. This myth indicates that there
were still traces of the ancient sultan law in the rural consciousness
- a relic from the old times when all land was owned by the state,
i.e., the sultan, while individuals were entitled only to a hereditary
right of use granted against labor and tax. Against this background
it made sense that a farmer was allowed to build a house next to
the field he cultivated. Those working in the factories thought nothing
about building houses in the immediate vicinity: one-story, often
with a garden for personal use. The building of houses and settlements
often was in keeping with the traditions of the Anatolian imece, rural
collective work. This led to the emergence of settlements, which
were not produced for a market value, but built by users with their
own hands for personal use.20
Gecekondus were not only near industrial sites at the periphery (since then
engulfed by the expanding boundaries of the city), but also in the gaps in the urban
fabric, in backyards and vegetable gardens, even in the midst of historical building
stock.Initially illegal, gecekondus were tolerated, and eventually sanctioned by later
Turkish governments who, as a result, didn’t need to provide cheap mass housing
for rural migrants. In addition, political leaders were also able to secure themselves
Figure 4: View of gecekondus
16
votes by providing land and issuing amnesties to these existing squatter
communities. Later, these gecekondu neighborhoods developed into community
compounds called mahalles that helped newly arriving migrants to ease their
transition from rural to urban living conditions by creating communities. Mahalle
is an Arabic word that is variously translated as district, quarter or ‘neighborhood’,
and represents the concept of identity formation and community in neighborhoods.
Mahalles typically serve as the intersection of public life and family life, generally
including things such as a mosque and a local coffee or teahouse as social center
and are a pivotal aspect to urban life.21
The migration into Istanbul after the end of World War II was not limited just
to people fleeing rural poverty and a way to enter the urban workforce. The
rural middle class mobilized too, and living space in the inner city was facing
rapidly growing needs. As a result, the first wave of urban transformation into
density in the city was the small-scale capitalist Yapsatçı, or yapsat, system.
Individual projects were built by landowners or neighbors, usually from within
the gecekondu neighborhoods, who evolved into businessmen and contractors.
While architecturally out of scale with the original more rural gecekondu and
architecturally unsophisticated, the resulting 3-5 story “build and sell” strategy
of multi-family dwellings was successful on the level of incremental density
and maintaining a sense of community. A new urban entrepreneur, the yapsatçi
developer, emerged during this time period. Unfortunately, this quasi-regulated
style of development led to the formation of entire residential areas with grossly
inadequate infrastructure and densities far higher than city officials had expected.22
The original gecekondu are now on their second or third round of voluntary
redevelopment, and the government is now taking a new twist on these lower
income neighborhoods – especially those with more attractive locations within the
central city. Today these yapsat residential areas are often viewed as having poor
living conditions and being structurally unsafe, making them prime targets for city
planners.23
Figure 5: View of gecekondus
17
A SELECTIVE SEISMIC LAW
Law no. 5366 forms the basis of the recent government-imposed urban
transformation projects in historic neighborhoods of Istanbul. Passed in 2005,
its formal name is “Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by Revitalizing
of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties.” However, the
law is popularly referred to as the “Urban Renewal Act” by community groups in
Istanbul, who argue that it is used in practice as a tool for mass urban renewal
and gentrification (terms that some employ with cynicism). With its approval by
the Council of Ministers this law has caused a dramatic change to the dynamics
of the urban land transformation processes within the old city. Following its
enactment, a series of historical neighborhoods were declared as renewal areas
by the authorities including the three pioneer projects of Tarlabasi in the district of
Beyoglu, and Sulukule and Suleymaniye, both in the district of Fatih. So far, the
law, in the way it is being implemented by the authorities, has proved to be a good
recipe for the expansion of gentrification via urban renewal of areas that remained
untouched during the earlier rounds of gentrification. There are 47 areas in Istanbul
targeted for urban renewal, making Law 5366, and the subsequent decision making
process that accompanies it, a critical key to development in the city.
In March 2012, another national law was passed that allows the national
government to condemn any neighborhood for reasons of seismic instability,
overriding all other preservation, environmental and planning regulations. Istanbul
is certainly at risk to a large seismic event, with some predictions that it is 65%
likely to experience at least a 7.6 earthquake by 2030. However, according to
citizen activists and academics, this law is not being implemented to retrofit and
improve the performance of existing housing across the board; rather it is being
selectively applied to secure and empty extremely high-value sites in the historical
core of the city and near de-industrialized waterfront sites to clear them for large
master-planned developments.
ISTANBUL IS CERTAINLY AT RISK
TO A LARGE SEISMIC EVENT,
WITH SOME PREDICTIONS
THAT IT IS 65% LIKELY TO
EXPERIENCE AT LEAST A 7.6
EARTHQUAKE BY 2030.
OKAN TUYSUZ, DIRECTOR OF THE EURASIA INSTITUTE OF EARTH
SCIENCES AT THE CITY’S TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
18
THE CASE OF SULUKULE
One of the first initiatives under the Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by
Revitalizing of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties law was
Sulukule, a traditionally Roma – also known as ‘gypsy’ – settlement neighborhood
dating back to the Byzantine era. Historical reports state that Sulukule may have
been the first area in the world to be permanently settled by a Roma population.
The neighborhood is 22 acres and situated along the Byzantine Walls in a
UNESCO priority protection zone. For centuries, the neighborhood served as a
music and dance cultural destination for the city and was also characterized by a
spatial pattern unique to Istanbul, featuring housing units that surrounding actively
used courtyards and gardens for informal and family activities. However, in the past
few decades, the neighborhood had suffered economic decline and the homes
were in varying states of disrepair.
On the basis of Law 5366 and seismic concerns, many homes have been
demolished with little or no notification to inhabitants. According to Aslı Kıyak
İngin of the Sulukule Platform, the neighborhood was also “highly stigmatized in
the minds of the mainstream populations mainly as being a host to drug users
and traders” and was thus an easy target for an urban renewal project. When
Sulukule was designated an urban renewal zone in 2005 and Prime Minister
Erdoğan announced, “We will save Sulukule from its state of aberration.” This
also meant relocating the 5,000 families who lived there to Tasoluk, a TOKI social
housing complex 18 miles away, providing them with free transportation back to
the city and some “cash,” according to the deputy mayor. In the end, nearly 60%
of the residents never moved into Tasoluk, finding the rents and maintenance fees
unaffordable and the location too far from their livelihood. The adjustment from a
low-rise communal lifestyle to the high-rise housing apartments was also untenable
for the residents and many resettled near Sulukule.24 In 2008, the UNESCO World
Heritage Committee criticized the Sulukule Renewal Project as a “gentrification
project” and recommended “that a balance must be found between conservation,
social needs and identity of the community.” 25
LD
GO
EN
A
SE
MARMARA SEA
N
Figure 6: World Heritage boundaries, as
redefined in 1998-9 in collaboration with
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Figure 7: Residents observe demolition of Sulukule
(photo credit: squattercity.blogspot.com)
19
TARLABASI, FENER, AND BALAT
Located in the center of Istanbul, Tarlabaşı is an ethnically mixed zone that is
highly stigmatized and associated with crime in the perceptions of the general
public. Comprised of 9 blocks and 278 plots, Tarlabaşı was declared a regeneration
zone by the government in February 2006. Close to the centrally located and
popular Taksim Square and Istiklal shopping street, possibly all of the buildings
are currently under demolition to make way for a high-end construction project that
will include housing, offices, hotels and a shopping mall. The regeneration project
is based on a public-private partnership model, where the Municipality of Beyoglu
has designated the project area and awarded the project to a market rate privately
owned developer, GAP Insaat. It was described recently in the New York Times as
follows:
In the heart of Istanbul, less than a five-minute walk from the
Istiklal Caddesi shopping hub, Tarlabasi’s faded facades are
in sharp contrast with Istiklal’s glitzy boutiques. The only thing
separating Tarlabasi from the more affluent Beyoglu neighborhood
is the six-lane Tarlabasi Boulevard, which has a police station
equipped with a tank. At stake is Tarlabasi’s diverse culture.
Migrant workers have a long history of living in Tarlabasi, dating
from the early 1900s when Greek, Jewish and Armenian craftsmen
lived in the area. But those groups were driven out by the wealth tax of 1942, which impoverished many non-Muslim workers, and in
1955 by riots that again focused on non-Muslims. Left vacant after
the riots, many houses in Tarlabasi were taken over by workers who migrated from eastern Turkey to find work in Istanbul.26
Similar to the approach in Tarlabaşı is the rehabilitation of both the Fener and Balat
Districts. First funded as program grew out of the UN Habitat II Conference (held
in Istanbul in 1996) it was intended to support the rehabilitation of economically
and socially deprived historic districts in the host city. Due to the loss of community
control and wholesale plan for demolition under Law no. 5366, it has disregarded
any UN directives and Fener-Balat, now criticized by UNESCO for improper
preservation techniques, illegal demolition and disregarding environmental goals,
20
Figure 8: Images of Tarlabaşı before developer rehabilitation
it is now near the final stages of urban renewal. Centrally located on the coast of
the Golden Horn, the area features picturesque, historical shops and houses, a sea
view, and several remains from the Ottoman past. It was here, on invitation from
Sultan Beyazid that Sephardic Jews persecuted in Spain and Portugal during the
16th century originally settled and established trade businesses.
These neighborhoods represent massive destruction-and-rebuild schemes that
are problematic on many levels. Of primary concern is the displacement of specific
social groups such as Orthodox Greeks, Kurds, Roma and other minorities are
losing their historic and cultural homes in some of the oldest neighborhoods
in the city. Architecturally, the existing low-rise highly-dense neighborhoods
steeped in the mahalle tradition and based on early city precedents of community,
connectivity and walkability are being traded in for sometimes larger but lowerdensity models that rely on parking structures. In addition, the speed of which
these transformations are happening is not allowing for the evaluation of individual
properties, larger community needs or broader environmental concerns. From
the perspective of urban scholar Yasar Adanali, “The city itself has become so
deliciously profitable that you can make these kinds of real estate projects without
actually involving the inhabitants of the area. The real motive in these plans is the
desire to make a profit.”27
These projects are merely microcosms of a larger theme playing out all over
Istanbul, and in fact in rapidly developing cities all over the world. Older city fabric
is unable to accommodate the onslaught of cars and clashes with middle class
tastes, and is seemingly in conflict with economic growth - at least as defined by
real estate activity. Governments relocate poorer populations to public housing
projects on the outskirts of the city, and communities are shattered. Housing
projects, such as those created by TOKI, result in towered cities with little or no
services, transportation or public space. As the German-English social scientist and
author Fredrich Engel once said on reflection of how governments work in cities to
improve them, the upper class “never solves these problems, they just move them
around.” Neither the resulting architectural fabric nor the social system reflects an
evolution in cities based on good social or planning practices.
21
Figure 9: (left) before (right) after GAP Insaat rehabilitation
‘STARCHITECTS’ AND ‘CITY PLANNING’ WITHIN CITIES
In areas closer to the high-rise business district of Levent, the colorful tightlypacked gecekondu vernacular of the last fifty years is being replaced by Dubaistyle high-rises that offer luxury amenities not previously available to Istanbul’s
increasingly globalized professional class. However by putting fewer people into
larger units, land use intensity is in many cases actually being decreased, pushing
even more of the constantly increasing urban population toward the periphery.
These towers (essentially vertical versions of the gated communities that are
proliferating into the northern and eastern forest regions) typically sit on concrete
islands made virtually unreachable on foot by oversized arterials, relying on on-site
resident-only fitness and shopping amenities that sit behind the guarded parking
entries.
Yet another trend in rapid urbanization is playing out in some of the formerly
working-class industrial port areas and rail yards that have been designated
as the sites for more integrated, upscale, master-planned districts designed by
internationally recognized architects.
These “architects-as-planner” schemes, while intriguing, defy any sense of
contemporary sensitivities to environment, scale or sense of place. Large scale,
master-planned ‘mini-cities’ by ”starchitects” such as Zaha Hadid, and marketed as
unique, creative expressions of these individual architect. This all-encompassing
plan is the latest example in a new trend in urban development that has taken
hold in the past decade, in which a visionary designer creates a detailed concept
for an entire neighborhood. The result – as in the Hadid project- is stylistically
driven, over-scaled ”city within a city” projects with little thought to pedestrian scale,
diversity, transportation, and connectivity to existing urban fabric or ecological
systems that are needed to support such ventures and create sustainable, livable
cities. While an artistic vision may be present, these designs call into question
the community, the environment, and the overall necessity of these distinctive
mega-projects and their impact on the city as a whole. To many Istanbulites these
schemes must resemble nothing so much as spaceships landing in their midst, not
just because they are painfully over-designed and over-scaled, but because they
are part and parcel of a generic global architecture that could literally have come
from anywhere, and is being built everywhere.
Figure 10: Zaha Hadid - Kartal Project
22
Figure 11,12: (top) Tago Architects (bottom) Hakan Dalokay & Boran Ekinci Architects
23
02
THE CONFLICTED ECOLOGICAL CITY:
GROWTH CITY / SUSTAINABLE CITY
SUSTAINABILITY IN ISTANBUL: “THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE”
Sustainability is at the forefront of urban policy discussions in nearly every major
developed city around the globe. Responsible management of water, natural
resources and energy are some of the major issues facing cities with the inherent
strain of millions of people living together within a compact urban footprint. For
Istanbul, much of the published planning and analysis was generated by the
Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and Urban Design Center (IMP), a quasi-public
planning authority and think tank established in 2004 and then disbanded in 2012,
just prior to the team’s visit. The IMP developed the Istanbul Spatial Development
Plan in 2006 and it underwent a revision in 2009. Both the original and revised
plans have a strong emphasis on sustainable resource management and growth.
Their overarching proposal considered an east-west linear development strategy
with sub-centers that were intended to minimize cross-city travel requirements. The
plan decentralizes and relocates main ports and industrial zones to the east-west
outskirts and privileges education, finance and service areas in the city center.28
While not directly stated in their reports, the polycentric city paradigm became
a pervasive theme throughout their master plan, as it has been of late in many
other metropolitan regions across the globe. The focus and concern regarding
sustainability appears to be related to Istanbul and Turkey’s efforts to become more
closely aligned with the EU. However, as recent economic shifts have occurred,
the current governmental policies seem to be steering away from this emphasis
and broadening the economic strategy to other parts of the global market with less
emphasis on sustainable development. As a consequence of this ideological shift,
less emphasis appears to be placed on sustainability issues such as forest, water
and transportation management, and more focused on near-term economic growth,
investment and development. According to a recent article in the Washington Post,
it appears that Erdogan, Turkey’s Prime Minister, is moving forward with plans for
the 3rd bridge to the north as well as a new airport in the northern area.29
During the interviews on the ground in Istanbul, questions regarding the approach
that Istanbul is taking in terms of broader sustainability issues yielded little
response and few answers. One expert told us: “The issue is that there is no issue.
24
In other words, no one in leadership positions wants to talk about the forestland
and the water shed.”30 Istanbul appears to be on a conventional 20th century
path of resource-intensive economic development with little environmental control
in terms of energy production and green house gas reductions, little recycling of
domestic materials or built assets, and little concern for their natural environment
– most notably the richly forested lands to the north considered to be the “lungs” of
the city.31
There appears to be a major gap between residents and government leaders with
regards to the importance of environmental resource management and anticipated
local impacts of climate change on Istanbul. In 2009, Ipsos, a global research
company, was commissioned by the London Urban Age team to undertake a
survey about the quality of life in Istanbul and assess what residents really think.32
Interestingly, the survey results revealed a clear concern about environmental
issues among Istanbul’s population. Almost twice as many people in Istanbul think
that efforts to protect the environment are needed to improve the quality of life than
in cities like London and New York.33 Nearly 60 percent of respondents were aware
of the impacts of climate change on their city, and water shortages came in as the
clear winner with over 80 percent of the responses. Fears about desertification,
extreme humidity and heat waves followed closely with 68%, 63%, and 54%
respectively. The basis of these fears seems to stem from the current population’s
desire to keep future generations safe from environmental disasters: 88% of the
respondents are concerned that the future of Istanbul’s children and grandchildren
will be threatened by the impact of climate change. These figures indicate a
mismatch between the populous and current political trends that privilege economic
growth over ecological viability, a fact that needs to be taken into account in future
debates about climate change and urban policies in Istanbul.34
“THE ISSUE IS THAT
THERE IS NO ISSUE. IN
OTHER WORDS, NO ONE IN
LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
WANTS TO TALK ABOUT
THE FORESTLAND AND THE
WATER SHED.”
30
ASU AKSOY, PROFESSOR AT ISTANBUL BILGI UNIVERSITY
25
THE SYSTEMS OF THE CITY
Before going to Istanbul, the fellows were captivated by a GIS-based analysis
of the greater metropolitan region; this image of the city, like the infamous first
photograph of the earth from space, shows the finite character of Istanbul and the
seeming balance of urban and forested area.35 The bulk of the city spreads along
the southern coast, with the heart of the city at the Golden Horn and clustered
along both sides of the Bosporus. Green areas indicate forests and water sheds
to the north that until recently were beyond the city limits, but are now part of the
“Istanbul Metropolitan Area.” Nearly 97% of Istanbul’s drinking water comes from
surface water collected in reservoirs. Its two most important water basins are the
Omerli-Darlik system on the Asian side and the Terkos-Alibeykoy system on the
European side which alone supply approximately 60% of the water of Istanbul.36
However, these basins are burdened with increased human settlements that
threaten the clean water supply. As economic and population pressures meet forest
and watershed boundaries, the latter are deteriorating due to new development
with “poor infrastructure”, such as inadequate storm and sanitary sewer systems,
“because of rapid and uncontrolled construction.”37
The GIS analysis is extensive: 38 data layers from life support systems (forest,
water, earth), sensitive eco-systems (water, dunes), natural hazard areas
(earthquakes, floods, landslides), and existing built environments (housing, roads,
industry, offices) were analyzed to define urban planning policy and identify the
best development sites for the city as it grows in population and responds to
economic opportunities.38 Municipalities throughout the region intended to use the
GIS analysis to address “rapid, uncontrolled and illegal urbanization accompanied
by insufficient infrastructure [that] has caused degradation for forest, water basin
and barren lands in the metropolitan areas, especially within the past two decades.”
As such, a set of very complex maps was produced that highlighted both critical
watershed, forest, and grassland zones as well as relatively safe (less risk of
earthquake and landslide) development zones. Here was a detailed analysis of
Istanbul that captures the competing interests of industry, housing, water, forest
and land. And yet, the IMP, which was formed under the direction of the Mayor
to research and prepare a regional master plan for Istanbul, it had recently been
disbanded under pressure from the Prime Minister for its failure to endorse a third
bridge over the Bosporus in its recommended master plan. The agency’s research
demonstrated that the traffic and development stimulated by the third bridge would
cause ecological catastrophes along the northern peripheries of the city owing to
expanded suburban growth in forested north region.
The third bridge exemplifies the tensions between economic growth and ecological
resilience faced by cities across the globe. A detailed study of urban growth
patterns related to the first two bridges illustrates and enumerates the conflicting
priorities and argues against the 3rd bridge in the proposed northern location.39
These forestry researchers wrote, “the proposed third bridge route threatens
agricultural areas, forests, water bodies and water collection areas that form the
open-space systems of Istanbul.” On the other hand, the third bridge opens areas
to the north for development, including the growth of gated communities and large
shopping centers. These types of developments are attractive to the high-income
urban elites, whose desired lifestyles reflect their image of the global norms that
do not change much from one place to another.40 The growing middle class in
Istanbul seems to seek what the middle class all over the world want as well: large
homes, cars and shopping malls. The northern areas of the city provide beautiful
forested lands for these homes and developments that are further from earthquake
26
Figure 13: GIS maps
27
prone areas. The economic pressures encourage “the new spatial imprint of
urban commerce with its free-standing stores, multiple establishments scattered
throughout the urban system under a common ownership, and large purpose-built
shopping center developments.”41 In contrast, those expressing opposition to the
bridge argue that it will exacerbate the unsustainable population growth of the city.
The third bridge actually accelerates the pace of population growth and urban
development. This could be called over development because of increased
accessibility over the areas that the third bridge affects. Because of the increased
accessibility to the land and economic resources of the city, building the third bridge
would increase both problems, and the location of the problems would shift.42
The third bridge is a prototypical example of the tensions between economic
and ecology. Thinking broadly about Istanbul’s future and the many pressures a
rapidly growing city puts on the natural resources, this leaves us with the question:
In cities such as Istanbul, can economic pressures be reconciled with ecological
preservation to maintain both shorter-term economic viability as well as longer term
ecological and economic health?
PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY
Interviews with developers, architects, planners, and academics as well as
citizens generated three common reactions to the questions about sustainability.
First, there were those who have published on these issues and shared with
us a growing and grave concern that economic drivers would consume the
attention of those in charge and the lungs of the city would collapse under the
pressure. All in this category were passionate about their city and dismayed at
the lack of interest in protecting natural resources. Second, those who manage
development responded that the pressure of the growing population, traffic, and
the need for housing, water, transportation and economic stability overshadowed
any ability to address sustainability. They explained that there were just too many
complex and pressing issues compared to which sustainability is a lower priority.
A third reaction came from official “green building” organizations, which seemed
to provide guidance but without a great deal of regional vision or a lot of apparent
conviction in the effort.
As we become urban, new generations live in a network of infrastructure where
resources come to us from pipes into sinks (as opposed to from rivers into
basins) - does this disconnection from the source of consumables (water for
example), impact the psychology of urban residents? As people become more
embedded in the city, do they become blind to the need to maintain, protect
and conserve resources for their livelihood, because they do not interact with
or have a daily connection to the origination of that resource? While the 2009
Ipsos survey indicates a high awareness of climate change and the need
to preserve local natural resources, real estate development and consumer
activities tell a different story. Upwardly mobile residents seek to buy larger
homes in new development areas and drive for hours each day to work and
school. Developments fill the city and spread into the natural lands. To be fair,
rural migrants to Istanbul’s gecekondus were no different – once they got legal
title to their plots, they built on every square inch, not leaving any room for
parks or schools or community services.43 We need to understand how to bring
ecological awareness into the capitalist marketplace. How do we create an
economic system that allows consumers to translate their ecological concern and
awareness into their commercial actions?
28
Just as the view of the earth from space spurred an environmental movement in
the 70s, the creators of the GIS and 3rd bridge maps of Istanbul’s development
and resources no doubt hoped they would inspire political and popular awareness
about how the city truly functions, where the resources reside and the importance
of these resources for the city’s long-term well-being. As a microcosm, what is
playing out in Istanbul, and Turkey as a whole, is analogous to what is playing
out on the world stage with other emerging economies such as Mexico, Brazil,
China, India and Indonesia. A major problem we will face in the next few
decades is that the citizens of these developing countries aspire to different
living standards. The populations of cities like Istanbul develop these aspirations
through watching television, seeing advertisements of global consumer products
sold in their country, and observing foreign visitors to their country. This can be
seen on the historic streets of Beyoglu where, barring the uniquely eclectic mix
of European and Islamic architecture, the street life and fashion appear very
similar to those in London, New York or Paris. However, the total human impact
of the mass consumption that accompanies this newfound wealth has both local
and global ramifications. In some part, this is the unsustainable “Dream” that
the U.S. and other more developed countries have exported across the globe.
While it is impossible for developed countries to solve this dilemma of too many
people consuming too few resources by blocking developing countries from
attaining these same living standards, perhaps there is a new “Dream”, a new
post-growth economic paradigm that can be exported by western cities to define
and demonstrate the tenets and long-term benefits of true sustainable urbanism
so that Istanbul, and its citizens, may flourish as they can and should while
preserving its fragile bio-region.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN ISTANBUL
SOLVING TRANSPORT PROBLEM
Source: Urban Age Istanbul Survey 2009
Source: Urban Age Istanbul Survey 2009
29
03
THE CONFLICTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CITY:
GLOBAL CITY / LOCAL CITY
WHAT’S THE ROLE OF REAL ESTATE IN NURTURING “CREATIVE CULTURE” AND LOCAL ENTREPRENEURISM?
Like many rapidly growing megacities in developing countries, Istanbul seems
enamored with car culture, consumerism, gated communities, and “starchitect”
designed mega projects. And yet this is in somewhat uneasy contradiction with
other socio-political trends. There is a recent emergence, coinciding with waning
interest in joining the Euro-zone, of a more heavy-handed nationalist agenda that
seems determined to combine liberalized capital markets and an imposition of
more conservative social values – a somewhat schizophrenic approach to fostering
entrepreneurial growth, and a strange follow-up to the 20th century secularism that
laid the foundation for Istanbul’s current economic momentum. This is puzzling
even given Prime Minister Erdogan’s Islamic roots – as until now his stronger
allegiance has been to his identity as a product of Istanbul as the “arrival city” riding
the economic and political emergence of the gecekondu dwellers from poor rural
villagers to entrepreneurial middle-class urbanites.44
Erdogan now seems to be abandoning his entrepreneurial roots and his role
as former mayor of Istanbul in a struggle to balance the needs of a globalized
professional upper class that are attracting foreign investment with the move
conservative poorer Islamic voters who are his political base. So while he presides
over a rapidly globalizing real estate market, he has been exercising extraordinary
nationalistic control over local communities, education and human rights. During
the visit, there was an emerging crack down on alcohol consumption and on café
culture generally.45 46 Politically and physically, voluntary segregation seems to be
gradually replacing tolerance, and top-down social conservatism contributes to a
sense of growing claustrophobia that seems destined to have a chilling effect on
the connectivity and social mixing needed to foster Istanbul’s emerging creative
class.
30
ISTANBUL TO FOREIGN INVESTORS
With its strategic location between Europe and Asia and its strong economic
growth rate, Istanbul has proven itself to be a rising star to foreign real estate
investors. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Turkey’s economic growth is anticipated to continue to
rise and lead among emerging markets. Turkey is expected to have the third
highest economic growth rate behind China and India by 2017. ULI’s “Emerging
Trends in Real Estate Europe - 2011” ranked Istanbul first among 27 European
metropolises for “Existing Property Performance”, “New Property Acquisitions”,
and “Development Prospects” categories. Turkey’s economic strength and recent
regulations easing sales to foreign citizens are responsible for Istanbul’s real estate
market experiencing its largest influx of foreign buyers, namely North Americans,
Europeans and Middle Easterners. But do these attractive statistics hide a greater
risk to the Turkish real estate market and economy?
In a strategic move that catered to foreign investors, the Turkish Parliament
recently passed a bill concerning the sale of land to foreign citizens that eliminated
the reciprocity requirement and increased the size limit on land bought by foreign
buyers to 30 hectares. The bill contained a number of amendments to the Land
Registry Law, the Mortgage Law, and tax laws dealing with property transaction.
These changes have allowed foreign direct investment transactions to be easier
and projects more profitable. In the first month of the bill’s approval, foreign real
estate acquisitions in Turkey reached $1.1 billion. That figure is four times the total
number of real estate purchases completed by foreigners in 2011. Serdar İnan,
chair of İnanlar İnşaat, said Turkey has an annual potential to sell $30 billion worth
of property to foreigners in the upcoming years.47 This number far exceeds the $2.9
billion sold to foreign citizens in 2010.
As foreign investors strengthen their presence in the Istanbul real estate market,
questions emerge about their effect on the city. TAB Real Estate Investment
Chairman, Ahmet Temeltaş, anticipates that the recent law changes will triple
Istanbul real estate prices in the next decade. This sharp increase has the potential
to create a real estate bubble, will displace lower and middle class Istanbulites,
and create artificial communities within the city. Foreign investment is responsible
for many of the luxury projects throughout Istanbul. There is growing concern
that these luxury projects, which account for less than 20% of the market, will
exponentially increase the value of the remaining market. Removed from their
own projects, foreign investors are most likely immune to the inherent qualities of
Istanbul’s existing neighborhoods, and with an agenda to deliver profitable returns,
ubiquitous projects are reshaping the urban fabric.
TURKEY IS EXPECTED TO HAVE
THE THIRD HIGHEST ECONOMIC
GROWTH RATE BEHIND CHINA
AND INDIA BY 2017.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
31
The consumer economy is heating up and both public and private capital are
responding with urban malls, suburban shopping centers, new wide roads and
cross-city tunnels. It is perhaps not surprising that in the city known for the Grand
Bazaar and the Spice Market, when asked the question “what do people like to do
here on the weekend?” people’s immediate answer was “shop”. For example, the
local Istanbul paper reports that:
The madness of shopping malls in Turkey is one of the most
discussed subjects. To give a number, there are 313 shopping
malls in Turkey as of June 2012, and 107 of them are in Istanbul.
By the end of 2013, the number of shopping malls in Istanbul is
estimated to reach 133, while it is expected to be 233 in Anatolia.
This means the number of shopping malls in Turkey will be 366 in
total by 2013, and that means billions of dollars of investments.48
The growing middle class spends weekends at malls and looking at real estate.
There is even talk of replacing the crowded streets and alleys full of fish restaurants
in the old Galata district with a new mall that would obliterate many blocks of
ancient crowded streets that epitomize old Istanbul, although where the demand
for such a project comes from is somewhat unclear. The culture seems to be taking
over much of the existing property to turn it over to a driving, economically driven
trend.
Figure 14: View of bazaar
32
Figure 15: Outdoor dining in Galata
THE CREATIVE CLASS OF ISTANBUL
“What is a city but the people.”
- Shakespeare
In parallel with the emergence of the consumer class is a burgeoning core
of creative talent that is having a highly visible impact, both locally and
internationally, on Istanbul’s art, fashion, hotel and restaurant scene. In the
post industrial world, economic growth is spurred by human capital. These
talented people are becoming an underlying global factor of production.
Enter the “Creative Class”; this term, coined by Richard Florida, represents
a socioeconomic class that is a key driving force for 21st century economic
development: comprised of science, technology and engineering professionals,
arts, culture and media workers, business executives, health care professionals,
lawyers and more. Istanbul appears to be increasingly awash in young talented
people – ironically at a time when economic policy is becoming more formalized
and less geared to entrepreneurial endeavors, begging the question of whether
decreasing secularism combined with a quest to build a more white-collar
workforce will squash its potential to build success on a new generation of
innovators of all ages; however some tend to focus on the young with nearly 60%
of the population of Istanbulites 29 years of age or younger.
“Endless new developments spreading beyond the cities are reducing city
and countryside alike to a monotonous, unnourishing gruel.”
- Jane Jacobs
Globally, cities like Istanbul are entering an escalating competition for increasingly
mobile talent, jobs and investment. While Istanbul is having considerable recent
success, it is not enough to have well educated, talented people living in your
city. It is well documented49 that Istanbul is striving to diversify from its industrial
roots to become a more service-and professional- based economy, but is it taking
steps to incubate the kind of innovative design- or production-side businesses
that are less vulnerable to real estate bubbles or global financial cycles? In order
to thrive, cities must enable smart people to work collaboratively. Within the kind
of dense urban areas that lend themselves to on-the-ground human interaction,
ideas have the ability to move from person to person, increasing the limits of
human creativity. As Istanbul continues to sprawl outwards, we wonder if the city
is working against this powerful phenomenon. To fully support the burgeoning
Creative Class, connectivity must be emphasized. And yet more highways
are built, more miles are driven, and less time is allocated to the transfer of
knowledge that generates innovation.
Much like Istanbul, cities such as London, New York and Paris benefit from
centuries’ worth of investment in buildings and cultural amenities, but their
industrious success comes from the ability to integrate their past into their future
and to amplify human interface and creativity. Facilitating collaboration and
promoting openness to new people and ideas are some of the most important
ways to achieve this. What is crucial is that the focus is on the people, and that
they are well served by the bricks and sticks that surround them. Will Istanbul
regret later that, in the process of clearing the way for large new construction
projects, portions of the local informal and/or production side of the urban
economy are being erased or displaced? Will Istanbul’s suburban enclaves
be able to generate the intellectual excitement that is possible in a traditional
walkable city?
33
“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
-Charles Darwin
Tolerance for diversity is another critical issue for Istanbul. Tolerance is key to
attracting and retaining human capital. Without it, entrepreneurism cannot thrive
and creative people will eventually take their knowledge and ideas elsewhere.
Talented people are a diverse group. They come in all shapes and sizes, ethnicities
and economic statuses, origins and locales. A debate is fully present in Istanbul
about tolerance, religion, street life and freedom of the press. Liberalism is
emerging, but not without pushback. Istanbul is a very dense place with a growing
creative class that energizes the city professionally as well as culturally, but
transportation and linkages between jobs and housing are weak and people are
disconnected from each other. There is growing foreign investment that connects
Istanbul to the world through a web of business relationships. This investment
represents an opportunity to remake the city in many different ways.
“The metropolis, with its universities, museums, libraries and
research labs, becomes one big, spatially integrated ‘coffee house,’
where bright minds out of diverse cultures strike sparks that
ignite the fires of new products and processes.”
-Wilbur Thompson
Figure 16: Istanbul
34
Figure 17: Istanbul’s suburbs
35
CONCLUSION : CITY AT A CROSSROADS
Istanbul is a unique city in which the palimpsest of major empires and diverse
cultures are continually imprinted upon each other, both physically in the structure
of the city and within its people. As in many ancient cities, the discussion around
space, time, history and politics are complex. With current critical issues centered
on the impacts of urban renewal and gentrification on class segregation, fine urban
grain being transformed into large-scale car-dependent mini-cities, and lack of
oversight of either historic properties or future-critical environmental resources,
Istanbul is at a crossroads in terms of whom the city is intended to serve.50 From
the research team’s perspective, the city’s current success seems fragile, masking
a simmering conflict between the city’s past and its future, and between short-term
economic growth and long-term cultural and ecological stability. While Istanbul’s
historic core is today still a delight to visit, our visits to the cities’ edges, our probing
analysis into its opaque decision-making processes, and our glimpses into the
future envisaged by its civic leaders provided an abrupt reminder that, as in many
rapidly developing places around the world, Istanbul’s 21st century global ambitions
carry with them a lot of 20th century baggage.
Istanbul’s ambition to be seen as a ‘world class’ city in the league of Shanghai,
Tokyo, London, is understandable. Istanbul sits both literally and culturally at
the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and was an epicenter of
global commerce in centuries past. It has incredible natural and historical gifts
that make it one of the most truly unique cities in the world: a breathtaking
location straddling both sides of the Bosporus and looking out to the Marmara
Sea, and a mesmerizingly diverse and colorful architectural fabric – ranging from
ancient mosques and churches to 19th century bourgeois villages and shopping
boulevards to the informal cheek-by-jowl gecekondu of the last half-century hugging the contours of its hills as far as the eye can see. The rapidly growing
student, artist and migrant populations lend the city an aura of youthful innovative
energy. Through prudent banking policies and fiscal practices, Turkey has largely
avoided the European meltdown, keeping employment growth strong that in turn
fosters political stability. Given its unique history, unique political structure, unique
identity and assets, what is so startling about Istanbul’s current trajectory is not that
its leaders have global ambitions, but that they seem to be pursuing them with such
a diligent and heavy-handed agenda to look exactly the same as other places. As
a result, much of the urban intensity, eclecticism and distinctiveness that could set
Istanbul apart as a leader in the more nimble and creative 21st century economy
may well be lost.
Istanbul can give the distinct impression that there is a fundamental mismatch
between the scale, speed and geography of international real estate capital and
the needs of people on the ground, and that Istanbul is, literally, “on sale” to the
highest bidder. The circularity of the real estate industry - a government creating
real estate opportunities that can attract foreign capital, which in turn create
professional service-sector jobs to manage the money and the construction, and
produce housing and parking garages for the rapidly growing consumer middle
class created by these professional service jobs – feels eerily like a huge bubble in
the making.
We were left asking whether and how new development in a city such as Istanbul
can be both globally ambitious and locally appropriate -- how developers and
architects might reinterpret global standards of high-rise business and residential
towers into buildings, streets and public spaces that sustain what is unique to
36
Istanbul, and support its local cultural interactions, commerce and life style.
Such questions are further complicated when we consider the fate of Istanbul’s
ecological assets. Its leaders are scrambling to complete new transit projects
to ease overwhelming congestion, but otherwise large-scale environmental
sustainability is apparently a luxury Istanbul does not think it can afford, at least
for now. A new third bridge over the Bosporus, in the relatively unspoiled northern
reaches of the metropolitan region is predicted by some to induce so much sprawl
that it could prove (without hyperbole) to be an environmental disaster for the
region – destroying its watersheds and forests.51 Yet its construction is starting,
against the recommendation of the metropolitan planning authority.
As in cities the world over, the costs of wealth creation in general and car
ownership in particular are being externalized, taking their long-term toll on the
quality of the public realm, local business prospects, human interaction and longterm environmental stability, incurring massive long-term social costs in terms of
human displacement. But in the case of Istanbul in particular, it is destroying the
fabric that defines the very essence of what makes the city a magnet for foreigners.
This irony seems lost on most Turks; they are exuberant about car ownership, both
as a symbol of middle class prosperity, and a way to transport their families to the
proliferating global brand malls where they gather and shop on the weekends.
On the other hand, while it is easy to criticize a government that seems to be
consolidating power and dictating development in Istanbul, it is difficult for
outsiders to understand the full story; the motives, long-term goals and decisionmaking process. Turkey has been playing catch-up to western democracies, both
economically and politically, through much of the 20th century, and so Turks are
justifiably proud of their recent progress. And we can hardly blame them for this
love affair with the car, given that the Marshall Plan made post World War II aid
conditional on the removal of Istanbul’s streetcar system in order to boost sales of
the US-dominated auto industry.
What we can say with certainty is that Istanbul’s current trajectory provides a sharp
contrast to the teams own 21st century focus on sustainability, pedestrianism
and place-making. While in North America and Europe, progressive urban policy
advocates conjecture hopefully about a new era of “post-consumerism”, “post-carculture”, the “post-cubicle” creative worker, and even the post-carbon city, Istanbul
is putting up hundreds of new buildings every year. Turks are not waiting to find
out whether crowd-sourced funding will really drive a new post-professional “indie
economy” or serve as a viable alternative to the heavy-handed forces of global
institutional capital.52 Nor are they in a very practical position to consider what one
might call the “post-density” approach to sustainable-city making that is suggested
in the recent writings of urban luminaries such as Richard Florida and Ed
McMahon, which prioritizes quality of place and nurturing of a creative generation
of young workers over production of raw space.53
In places like Istanbul, there is little time for reflection about what is being lost and
gained, or about the longer-term social issues and environmental impacts they
will face a result of how they meet their short-term challenges. Doug Saunders
documents this speed of transformation brilliantly in his book Arrival City as
the “hidden story” of the 21st century, and appropriately admires the unique
entrepreneurism of Istanbul’s migrant class.
37
At the speed of current development in Istanbul, a city which looks outward
toward the world and focuses on the car and a global ‘modern’ paradigm, and
where cultural issues are complex and politics run deep, perhaps it is not the
traditional idea of planning that is needed but rather a revised approach to the
incremental individual change that has so uniquely fueled Istanbul’s history.
Most significantly, the diversion of even a small portion of Istanbul’s real estate
capital and its de-industrialized land into the hands of small infill developers,
retrofitters and ”self-gentrifiers” could be hugely impactful in a number of ways:
reducing mass displacement, providing the engine for more entrepreneurial wealth
creation, offsetting the wholesale adoption of an increasingly homogenized global
architecture, and avoiding the repetition of planning errors made in the western
world over a half a century ago – that serve neither a new creative class nor a
traditional, diverse population of migrant workers and ethnic minorities – and that
serve neither Istanbul’s past or its future.
38
39
REFERENCES
Behar, Cem. A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants
in the Kasap İlya Mahalle. Suny Press, 2003
Benmayor, Gila. “Making a Difference in Shopping Mall Maddness.” Hurriyet Daily
News, October 23, 2012.
Brahim Baz, Abdurrahman Geyman, Semih Nogay. “Development and Application
of GIS Based Analysis/Synthesis Modeling Techniques for Urban Planning
of Istanbul Metropolitan Area.” Advances in Engineering Software 40
(2009): 128-40.
Çakir, G., Ün, C., Baskent, E.Z., Köse, S., Sivrikaya, F., Keleş. “Evaluating
Urbanization,Fragmentation and Land Use/Land Cover Change Pattern
in Istanbul City, Turkey from 1971 to 2002.” Land Degradation &
Development 19 (2008): 663-75.
Committee, World Heritage. “Unesco Expert Mission Report.” 26-45: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006.
Dombey, David. “Erdogan’s Grant Ambitions for Istanbul.” Washington Post, August
31, 2012.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. “Cities of the Future May Soon Look Like Those of the Past.” In,
Governing the States and Localities (April 2012). Published electronically.
Erickson, Amanda. “Land Transfer of the Day: 4.1 Million Acres.” The Atlantic: Cities, May 12 2012.
Esan, Orhan. “The City of Istanbul: Material Production and Production of the
Discourse.” In, Substitute City (2010).
Florida, Richard. “For Creative Cities, the Sky Has Its Limit.” The Wall Street Journal, July 27 2012.
---------------------. “The Limits of Density.” The Atlantic Cities May 16 2012.
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic books, 2002.
---------------------. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic books, 2002.
---------------------. “Talent Beats Trade in Economic Development.” The Atlantic
Cities September 11 2012.
Foggo, Hacer. “The Sulukule Affair: Roma against Expropriation.” Roma Rights
Quarterly 4 (2007).
Geyman, A. “Impacts of Bosporus Bridges on the Istanbul Metropolitan Settlement
Areas.”, edited by Degredation & Development, 2011.
H. Sarkis, N. Turan. “A Turkish Triangle: Ankara, Istanbul and Izmar at the Gates of
Europe.” edited by Aga Khan Program at the Harvard University Graduate
School of Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2009.
40
Jason Twill, Carrie Dossick, Kathryn R. Merlino, Carrie S. Dossick, Ian Fishburn,
Natalie Gualy and Liz Dunn. “Personal Interview with Asu Aksoy.” Istanbul,
Turkey, 2012.
Keyder, C. “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul.”. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 29 (2005): 124-34.
Oxford, Dictionaries. “Megacity”. Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010 %! “Megacity”.
Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010.” Oxford University Press.
Özbudun, Ergun, and Ali Kazancigil. Atatürk, Founder of a Modern State. Hamden,
Conn.: Archon Books, 1981.
Program, Metropolitan Policy. “Global Metro Monitor 2011: Volatility, Growth and Recovery.” Brookings Institute, 2011.
“Real Estate Sales to Foreigners Reach $1.1 Bln in One Month “. Hurriyet Daily News, 2012.
Sassen, Saskia. “The Immutable Intersection of Vast Mobilities.” Urban Age:
Istanbul City of Intersections (2009).
Saunders, Doug. Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping
Our World. New York: Pantheon, 2011.
Senerdem, Erisu Dautas. “Going Green, Still Trying to Take Root in Istanbul.”
Hurriy et daily News, 2010.
Sudjic, Deyan. “The City Too Big to Fail.” Urban Age: Istanbul City of Intersections
(2009).
Tokatli N., Boyaci Y. “The Changing Morphology of Commercial Activity in
Istanbul.”. Cities 16 (1999): 181-93.
Torchia, Christopher. “Istanbul: A Straining Metropolis Dreams Big” Seattle Times,
March 11, 2012.
Turan, Neyran. “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul.” In Megacitiies:
Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability, edited by André Sorensen.
Springer; 1st Edition, 2011.
“Turkish Forum.” World Turkish News Coalition, November 12, 2011.
Weiner, Miriam B. “World’s Most Visited Cities.” http://travel.usnews.com/features/
Worlds_Most_Visited_Cities/.
41
ENDNOTES
Christopher Torchia, “Istanbul: A straining metropolis dreams big “ Seattle Times, March 11, 2012.
1
Generally considered a city with 10 million or more inhabitants. Dictionaries
Oxford, “”megacity”. Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010 “megacity”. Oxford Dictionaries.
April 2010,” (Oxford University Press).
2
Miriam B. Weiner, “World’s Most Visited Cities,” http://travel.usnews.com/
features/Worlds_Most_Visited_Cities/.
3
In terms of capital flows, Turkey’s dominant trade and investment partnership
is with the European Union. In 2007, trade between Turkey and the EU stood
at US$ 12.4 billion, an astounding thirty-fold increase over the 1990 to 2000
annual average. Of all EU countries, the Netherlands’ $5.7 billion (in US dollars)
made it by far the largest single investor in Turkey, with a group of smaller EU
countries together accounting for another $4.9 billion. The long history of economic
interactions with Europe since World War II and during the Cold War has increased
this dominance for decades. For more see: Saskia Sassen, “The Immutable
Intersection of Vast Mobilities,” Urban Age: Istanbul City of Intersections (2009).
4
Ergun Özbudun and Ali Kazancigil, Atatürk, founder of a modern state (Hamden,
Conn.: Archon Books, 1981).
5
6
Ibid.
Metropolitan Policy Program, “Global Metro Monitor 2011: Volatility, Growth and
Recovery,” (Brookings Institute, 2011).
7
Neyran Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul,” in Megacities:
Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability, ed. André Sorensen (Springer; 1st
Edition, 2011).
8
Boyaci Y. Tokatli N., “The changing morphology of commercial activity in
Istanbul.,” Cities 16(1999).
9
Keyder reports the figures indicate a worsening income distribution resulting from
a Gini coefficient of 0.42 to 0.58 in 1994, which is arguably higher today in 2012.
These numbers do not reflect the change in attitudes and sense of the city most
inhabitants share. See: C. Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul.,”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(2005).
10
Ibid., p. 24.
11
Deyan Sudjic, “The City Too Big to Fail,” Urban Age: Istanbul City of Intersections
(2009).
12
13
Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul..”
14
Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul.”
A. Geyman, “Impacts of Bosporus Bridges on the Istanbul Metropolitan
Settlement Areas.,” in Degredation & Development (2011).
15
16
IMP presentations illustrate the vast amount of mega-projects currently.
“Turkish Forum,” World Turkish News Coalition, November 12, 2011. Prime
Minister Erdoğan was previously the mayor of Istanbul, from 1994-1998.
17
It is important to recognize there are more complex political issues at play, for
recently, after Washington and Europe were praising Turkey as a model of Muslim
democracy for the Arab world, Turkish human rights advocates said in early
January 2012 that the government had been showing an ominous trend toward
18
42
repressing freedom of the press through a mixture of intimidation, arrests and
financial machinations, including the sale in 2008 of a newspaper and a television
station to a company linked to the prime minister’s son-in-law. Much of this is
attributed to the conservative power of the Prime Minister, who has been in power
since 2003.
The term gecekondu derives from the Turkish words “gece”, meaning “night” and
“kondu” – meaning “placed” or “landed.”
19
Orhan Esan, “The City of Istanbul: Material Production and Production of the
Discourse,” Substitute City(2010).
20
Cem Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil
Servants in the Kasap İlyas Mahalle, (Suny Press, 2003 ).
21
Orhan Esan, “The City of Istanbul: Material Production and Production of the
Discourse”. Note: We would like to thank Orhan Esan for his incredibly detailed,
academic and thought-provoking tours through the city of Istanbul on our trip in
Marh 2012, in which we saw the city’s history emerge as we drove endless miles
and walked the city streets. We are indebted to his kindness and knowledge.
22
23
Urban Age City Data, London School of Economics, 2009
Hacer Foggo, “The Sulukule Affair: Roma against Expropriation,” Roma Rights
Quarterly 4(2007).
24
World Heritage Committee, “Unesco Expert Mission Report,” (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006).
25
Jessica Bourque, “Poor but Proud: Istanbul Neighborhood Faces Gentrification,”
New York Times, July 4, 2012.
26
27
Ibid.
Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul.”
David Dombey, “Erdogan’s Grant Ambitions For Istanbul,” Washington Post,
August 31 2012.
28
David Dombey, “Erdogan’s Grant Ambitions For Istanbul,” Washington Post,
August 31 2012.
29
Carrie Dossick Jason Twill, Kathryn R. Merlino, Carrie S. Dossick, Ian Fishburn, Natalie
Gualy, and Liz Dunn, “Personal Interview with Asu Aksoy,” (Istanbul, Turkey 2012).
30
31
Sudjic, “The City Too Big to Fail.”
32
Ibid.
Erisu Dautas Senerdem, “Going Green, Still Trying to Take Root in Istanbul,”
Hurriyet Daily News 2010.
33
34
Urban Age City Survey, Ipsos, 2009
Abdurrahman Geyman Brahim Baz, Semih Nogay, “Development and Application
of GIS Based Analysis/Synthesis Modeling Techniques for Urban Planning of
Istanbul Metropolitan Area,” Advances in Engineering Software 40(2009).
35
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., p. 129.
38
Brahim Baz, “Development and Application of GIS Based Analysis/Synthesis
43
Modeling Techniques for Urban Planning of Istanbul Metropolitan Area.”
G. Çakir, Ün, C., Baskent, E.Z., Köse, S., Sivrikaya, F., Keleş, “Evaluating
Urbanization, Fragmentation and Land use/land Cover Change Pattern in Istanbul
city, Turkey from 1971 To 2002,” Land Degradation & Development 19(2008).
39
N. Turan H. Sarkis, “A Turkish Triangle: Ankara, Istanbul and Izmar at the Gates
of Europe,” ed. Aga Khan Program at the Harvard University Graduate School of
Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2009).
40
41
Tokatli N., “The changing morphology of commercial activity in Istanbul..”
Geyman, “Impacts of Bosporus Bridges on the Istanbul Metropolitan Settlement
Areas..”; ibid.
42
Doug Saunders, Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping
Our World (New York: Pantheon, 2011).
43
44
Ibid.
Dorian Jones, “Is Alcohol Apartheid Coming to Istanbul?,” http://www.
theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/08/alcohol-apartheid-comingistanbul/3016/
45
Constanze Letsch, “Istanbul’s Al Fresco Diners Lose Their Chairs,” http://www.
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/05/istanbul-cafes-lose-outdoor-tables
46
“Real estate sales to foreigners reach $1.1 bln in one month “, Hurriyet Daily
News 2012.
47
Gila Benmayor, “Making a Difference in Shopping Mall Maddness,” Hurriyet Daily
News, October 23 2012.
48
Kopeykin, Boris “Ratings Direct – Istanbul (city of)”, Standard & Poor’s (2009): n.
pag. Web. 20 October 2012.
49
50
Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul..”
Amanda Erickson, “Land Transfer of the Day: 4.1 Million Acres,” The Atlantic:
Cities, May 12 2012.
51
Richard Florida, “For Creative Cities, the Sky Has Its Limit,” The Wall Street
Journal, July 27 2012.
52
Richard Florida, “Talent Beats Trade in Economic Development,” The Atlantic
Cities, September 11 2012;
53
44
45