Comparative Analysis of Urban Transformation

Projects: Süleymaniye and Tarlabaşı Districts

Nilay Kayaalp

Bahçeşehir University

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

Historic Peninsula Against Pera

Wooden houses with large spread-out roofs warm their purple colors amidst fresh
greenery and within enclosures whose mystery delights me; although they group
themselves quite harmoniously around all these summits formed by really
enormous mosques, a poisoned atmosphere hangs over Pera, under an
unrelenting light... The Middle East centers around a formidable tower at Pera, a
compressed city with the allure of New York, enclosing Turks who doze into an
indefatigable kef. Stone houses scale up within thrusting upward like upright
dominoes, offering two sections of white walls riddled with windows and then two
adjoining walls the color of dried blood. Nothing softens the severity of this height.
There are no trees, for they would take too much space. The streets rise crazily
and leave breathless by their thirst for gain; the houses join upper stories over
extremely narrow streets. (Le Corbusier, 1911) (Figure 1)

Istanbul has always been symbolically important to understand the political, economical,
and sociological structure of the country. Historically, apart from being an important trade
center due to its strategic location; Istanbul as an imperial capital was positioned not as a
production center but as a huge consumption point enjoying the sources from the various
parts of the empire (Girouard, 1985). In the Ottoman era, not only the economic structure,
population density, consumption and production policy; but the spatial organization of the
city were also strictly regulated by the state. This control mechanism was valid until the
19th century; as a result of the diminishing power of the central authority, global forces
started changing the traditional structure of the city (Keyder, 2006). With respect to the
political and economical impoverishment of the Ottoman Empire, the players of liberal
economy started taking their place in Istanbul, transforming the consuming capital into a
lively and cosmopolitan trade hub. Starting with Galata and Pera, where the majority of
the Europeans and non-Muslims resided, the urban fabric of Istanbul has severely
transformed.

1 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

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

After the second quarter of the 19th century,

there was a visible gap between the two
shores of the Golden Horn. The “oriental and
traditional” Stamboul with its impressive Islamic
monuments and modest residential fabric lay
against the “Europeanized” Galata and Pera
with its masonry apartments, narrow streets
and dense layout (Girardelli, 2007). These two
regions had considerably diverse social,
physical, and cultural structure and strata as
well. While Stamboul maintained a more
traditional structure, in terms of buildings and
social institutions; Galata and Pera faced a
significant transformation and according
growth. To the maps of B. R. Davies in 1840,
Stamboul did not grow much beyond the
Theodosios city-walls. However, Galata faced
Figure 1. an incredible population increase and the city extended beyond the city-walls in three
Sketches of Le different directions (Çelik, 1993). The traditional population rate of 60% Muslim and 40%
Corbusier
non-Muslim in Istanbul changed during the 19th century to a reverse rate of 40% Muslim
and 60% non-Muslim (Girardelli, 2007). The reason for this demographic shift, despite the
heavy Muslim migration from the Balkans to Istanbul, was the incoming Europeans to the
area due to the legal rights and economic benefits ensured with the capitulations and
Tanzimat reforms (Çelik, 1993). Starting with the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1838,
foreign capital flow –meaning economical and political control- officially started. With this
agreement (and similar ones with other countries) European merchants gained the same
rights as local merchants and paid less tax than locals. In 1855, the Ottoman Empire was
provided foreign loans for the first time in its history to finance the Crimean war (Çulcu,
2006). This was apparently an economic invasion and within a short time period, a
significant number of European merchants, traders and bankers settled down in Istanbul,
naturally in Pera, close to their embassies. Between 1840 and 1900, approximately
100,000 non-Muslim newcomers settled down in Galata and Pera (Shaw & Shaw, 2002).

With the foundation Turkish Republic and declaration of Ankara as the new capital, the
privileged position of Istanbul has drastically changed. The city has lost its economical,
political, and social advantages and experienced a long-term stagnation (Armağan, 2007).
As a result of the nationalist ideology of the new republic and its ethnic homogeneity
program; the population of Istanbul shrunk, especially because of the severe depopulation
of the non-Muslim entities. Termination of capitulations reduced the number of foreign
merchants. Between 1927 and 1929, foreign embassies were transferred to the new
capital of the republic. As a result the elite European population living in the area has

2 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

moved to Ankara. By the first half of the 20th century, there were attempt to nationalize and
homogenize Istanbul and “enlightened” Turkish bourgeois and technocrats of the Republic
started residing at the newly developed quarters of the city (Çelik, 1993). As explained by
Çağlar Keyder, the class struggle in Turkey was accepted as an ethnic problem (Keyder,
2008). The contradiction between the bourgeois class, mostly composed of non-Muslim
and European merchants, revealed itself as a Muslim versus non-Muslim struggle. The
young Turkish Republic, with a desire to construct its “own” bourgeois class and national
economy excluded the non-Muslim “compradors” of the 19 th century. In the Early
Republican context, the rejection of the past had a two-fold meaning; the first was the
rejection of the Ottoman heritage and the second was the antagonism against the
economic dominancy of the West. In the official ideology, the backwardness and
corruption of the Empire was related with the economic dependence of the country, which
was directly related with the non-Muslim bourgeois class.

This denial of Ottoman past had found its reflection in the urban platform as well. The
contempt for the “cosmopolitan” and old Istanbul against “national” and young Ankara was
the official discourse of the early Republican era. Eventhough, Istanbul was in neglect as
a whole, the distinction between the historic peninsula and Pera was not bridged, on the
contrary the socio-economical gap between the two sides of Golden Horn has widened.
After the collapse of the empire these two neighborhoods were loaded with new sets of
meanings; while historic peninsula was identified with the rejected Ottoman heritage, Pera
was believed to represent the modern and civilized face of the new republic. The upper
class Muslims/Turks were more than eager to leave their traditional timber houses and
unmodern lives for the sake of apartment buildings that were emerging in the newly
developing neighborhoods of Istanbul. Grand Rue de Pera, with its new national name
‘İstiklal Caddesi’ became the showground for the emerging bourgeois class and for the
early-enlightened Turkish elites.

Post 1950’s was the beginning of a new era for Istanbul. The involuntary economic
stagnation and population decrease of Istanbul ended with an intense wave of migration,
mostly from the Blacksea region (Keyder, 2006). The rural immigration had severe socio-
cultural impacts and urban implications especially on the old neighborhoods of Istanbul.
These historic quarters slowly transformed into areas of deprivation accommodating low-
income groups and surrounded with gecekondu (illegal housing) and slum areas (Uzun,
2001). The distinction between city-dwellers and emigrants were not only economic but
also cultural; the republican dream for a homogeneous elite class of Turkish technocrats
and bourgeois has faded with the invasion of the city by Anatolian villagers. An interview
conducted by After Bartu (2006) with one older man from a well-known family briefly
summarizes the cultural conflict and social fragmentation between the “indigenous”
citizens of Istanbul and the new-comers:

Istanbul was conquered again in the 1950’s, 500 years after Sultan Mehmet’s
victory, by the Anatolian invasion. These people brought their own civilization to
my city, instead of trying to adapt to ours. I am sure that none of these people
have ever been to an exhibition in their lives; all they think about is getting enough
money for a summer house. We became a nation of lahmacun eaters. Fifty years
ago no one in Istanbul knew what lahmacun was- or if we did, we called it pizza.

Old gentlemen’s comments reflected the common nostalgia for the “old Istanbul” which
was mostly identified with the elegant streets, cafes, and shops of Beyoğlu. Apparently
with the flow of immigrants the face of the area has slowly changed; stylish restaurants,
cafes, patisseries have left their place to traditional music halls, low rate night clubs
serving the new rich class, acquiring financial power in a short time by war-time black
marketing. Most of the famous theatres of Beyoglu were closed down, the luxury
boutiques and restaurants turned into low-rate mills and workshops. The vacant properties
previously owned by the non-muslim population were occupied by the lowest income

3 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

groups the majority of those being the Anatolian immigrants. Some of the old houses were
demolished for the construction of new apartments. Eventually this multi-lingual, multi-
cultural, privileged district of Istanbul, transformed into a center of crime, prostitution,
unplanned housing, and low-rate entertainment. After 1980s, nostalgic renovation efforts
and rejuvenation projects were established within the district. Istiklal Street (Grand Rue de
Pera) was converted to a pedestrian axe of cultural activity and shopping with art centers,
movie theatres, restaurants, shops, boutiques on its sides. The Tarlabasi Street was
turned into a boulevard, by Dalan’s demolishing the row of houses on the right-hand side,
and connected Taksim Square to Sishane. Istiklal Street was closed to traffic and trams
started operating from Tunel to Taksim square. Several artists and intellectuals moved
into the area and renovated historic buildings. The efforts for converting the region back to
its authentic atmosphere and sustaining the cultural heritage have intensified after 1990s.

The case for Historic Peninsula was barely different. The deserted traditional houses of
the area were either occupied by seasonal workers, used as shelters for poor families, or
converted into manufacturing ateliers and depots for local producers. After 1980’s a new
era has started in Turkey with economic privatization and globalization policies of the
government (Uzun, 2001). Istanbul became once again, Turkey’s window opening to the
world and the city developed into a huge metropolis attracting international investors. Mid-
sized industrial facilities moved from the skirts of the Golden Horn and large-scale
investments took their place in Gebze - Izmit axis. Instead, the service sector started
dominating the economy; Istanbul became an appealing center for finance,
communication, tourism, international trade, and overseas transportation. Cultural,
touristic and historic assets of the city were promoted to attract more tourists, more
investors and more visitors. Historic quarters of the city, including Süleymaniye, started
drawing attention of the scholars, tourists and eventually attracted investors. In
Süleymaniye against all social and economical downturns, the district kept its authentic
character and symbolic appeal. Within the last couple decades, the district became one of
the major centers of tourist attraction, thanks to the glorious Süleymaniye Mosque and its
world renowned architect, Mimar Sinan. Additionally, by the end of the 1990’s, relatively
preserved historic fabric of the neighborhood presenting typical examples of Turkish
vernacular architecture in urban scale became a point of interest for architects, planners,
historians, international organizations and for visitors. The area housed fine examples of
timber Turkish houses and the district was accepted to the UNESCO (United Nations
Education and Scientific Committee) World Heritage List in 1986i. By the turn of the
century, several urban development and regeneration projects were proposed to
transform the area one more time in its long and nonlinear history.

Urban Transformation - Generalized Gentrification

Urban cores do not disappear. The fabric erodes them or integrates them
to its web. These cores survive by transforming themselves. The
aesthetic qualities of these urban cores play an important role in their
maintenance. They do not only contain monuments and institutional
headquarters, but also spaces appropriated for entertainments, parades,
promenades, festivities. In this way urban core becomes a high quality
consumption product for foreigners, tourists, people from the outskirts or
suburbanites. It survives because of this double role: as place of
consumption and consumption of place (Lefebvre, 2000).

“Urban transformation”, a more courteous term used instead of gentrification, is one of the
most controversial topics of the last couple years in Turkey. Against all the criticisms, law
5366, removing areas designated by the Council of Ministers outside the conventional
planning system, has passed in 2005 by the ruling Justice and Development Party. As a
result, several inner-city historic areas in the major cities of Turkey became a center of
attention for public and private investors. Istanbul, a huge metropolis developed around

4 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

numerous historic cores, has been witnessing hot debates on urban renovation,
architectural restoration, social relocation, political responsibility, economic profitability,
and property speculation. Urban transformation projects taking place in Istanbul could be
accepted as “generalized gentrification” (Smith, 2002) processes, since the lower socio-
economic groups that were displaced towards the outskirts of the city were to be replaced
by high-income parties together with a physical renewal of the historic buildings. This
state-led gentrification processes are believed to share a common goal of maximizing the
property values of inner-city neighborhoods (Uzun, 2001), there exist several diverse
planning attitudes and various profit generating intensions developed for the different
quarters of the city.

The Urban Transformation act, namely the Law 5366 act was a part of the ongoing
attempts for regaining the historic city centers of the major Turkish cities. Its aim was
described as “Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by Revitalizing of Deteriorated
Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties”ii. Especially Istanbul with a large number of
historic and industrial zones that are now located at the very center of the city, became
the center of attention both for the investors and for the local governments. Law 5366
provides a privileged status and special advantages for the investors for their
transformation projects within the historic districts. Special tax benefits will help investors
to decrease their construction costs up to 30%iii. Also, the area will be taken out the
conventional planning system and the projects would be approved by special conservation
councils not by the Council of Monuments which is famous for its strictly conservative
attitude towards the construction works within the preservation areas. Most importantly,
the “urgent expropriation” law that gives the local government the right to expropriate the
property whose owners are not willing to cooperate with the urban transformation plan. In
other words, houses whose owners don’t have enough funds for restoration or are not
willing to renovate the buildings they own could be expropriated by the local government.

Apparently, “urban transformation”, let’s say state-led urban gentrification, was one of the
neoliberal operations of the government. Neoliberalism, dominating the world political
arena since 1990’s and changing the conventional relations between the capital and the
state, was defined by David Harvey as “[A] theory of political economic practices that
human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms
and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights,
free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005). However, Neil Smith (2002), states that
“neoliberal state becomes a consummate agent of the market” rather than being a
regulator of it and turn out to be an active player in the new urbanism trend of generalized
gentrification.

Gentrification is a concept defining the revitalization and reinvasion of the urban city
centers. Reinvasion occurs when upper-status groups replace the lower-status groups in
inner-city areas 8 (Palen & London, 1984). Gentrification is defined as “the movement of
middle and upper-middle income people into a neighborhood along with the renovation of
housing, resulting in the displacement of the previous inhabitants” by Holcomb and
Beauregard. According to Karp, Stone and Yoels “gentrification occurs when well-off
populations buy up, renovate, and refurbish buildings in decaying inner-city
neighborhoods” (Uzun, 2001). The “first-wave gentrification” started around 1960’s in
England as a marginal development when middle class professionals preferred to live in
the inner-city quarters. Generally, the urban “gentry” moving in to the district renovated the
old structures and the face of the district slowly transformed, so does the social life and
quality of the neighborhood. During the 1980’s, changing demographic structure of the
cities, internal dynamics of the housing market, increasing value of urban lifestyle, and the
post-industrial urban economic base were used the explain the “second-wave”
gentrification phenomena (Ley, 1986). However, in less than half-a-decade, the concept of
gentrification and its scale of implementation have changed drastically from a marginal
peculiarity to a state policy. Smith introduces the concept of “gentrification generalized” as

5 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

 a state led urban renewal operation to gentrify the entire inner-city areas. Gentrification
generalized or third-wave gentrification, the global urban strategy of the 21st century,
describes how the state, local governments and international financers incorporate to
market the city centers as income generating residential or touristic destinations (Smith,
2002). Smith also argues that gentrification generalized is a global trend implemented not
only in the Western countries but almost in every part of the globalizing world, including
Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Supporting Smith’s argument, within

the last couple years, a historical
and cultural consciousness and an
economic interest awakened
towards the historical quarters of
Istanbul. The city has a very high
settlement density with a population
of more than 13 million. The
urbanization rate of Istanbul has
increased 116% and industrialization
rate has increased 140% within the
last fourteen yearsiv. Additionally, a
large percentage of its surface area
is currently being inhabited with new
settlements expanding towards the
outskirts of the city. The real estate
values constantly increased with a
growing demand for land property,
housing, and office buildings. The
historic centers of Istanbul, inhabited
by the low-income groups of the city,
became attractive spots for
gentrifiers, real estate capitalists,
and the state (Ley, 1996). Following
the ongoing trends in the world,
several gentrification and low-
income housing projects were held
by the local governments in
association with the state and the
Figure 2. global corporations. In the larger scope, urban transformation projects
Looking towards covered gentrification, urban renovation, and mass housing policies that
Galata from are designed for the reorganization of the lands at the center of the city
Süleymaniye which were mostly occupied by the poor. In this sense, the social
housing projects served as social control mechanisms to legitimize the
“cleaning” of the urban centers from the poor (Burkay, 2006). One of the
interviewees, sociologists Prof. Dr. Nilüfer Narlı, defines urban
transformation as “the utilization and modification of urban pieces of land for social,
economical, cultural and even for political purposes.” and states the questions to be asked
“Would you like to gain profit from that area or do you really care about the city and its
historic heritage and enjoy living in such an area?” clarifying the distinction between the
first-wave and third-wave gentrifications. An active member of the Istanbul Chamber of
Architects and a sharp voice against gentrification, Mücella Yapıcı, mentioned that:

“All of the developments in Süleymaniye, Tarlabaşı, Sulukule or Nesrişat Sultan have a

single purpose: Property exchange. Those buildings are prepared for their new users from
a different segment of the society. New luxurious uses such as tourism, residences, or
high-end condos for high income user groups are proposed for these areas. In this

6 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

manner the urgent expropriation act is being abused. These are profit generating policies
for supporting, sustaining and marketing a city without any productivity at all.”

As underlined by Yapıcı, the implementation of several urban transformation projects has

recently started in the historic districts of Istanbul, two of which are hoped to be discussed
and comparatively analyzed in this paper. Süleymaniye Neighborhood, located at the
hearth of Historic Peninsula, was also declared as the pilot area for the Museum-City
project. Tarlabaşı district located on the east of the cultural and recreational axis İstiklal
Street was also designated as an area of urban renewal. Even though both districts were
categorized under the same status by the law 5366, Tarlabaşı and Süleymaniye
neighborhoods differ in social, economical, cultural, and political terms as well. Their
different course of historical developments since the Ottoman times, found its reflection in
their distinct architectural typology and urban formations.

Süleymaniye Neighborhood - Nostalgia Realized

Süleymaniye Neighborhood, among many other historic districts of Istanbul, was declared
as an urban transformation area and was also chosen as a pilot area for the Museum-City
project by the local government of Istanbul. The historical significance, central location,
and symbolic value of Süleymaniye distinguished the area from other inner-city areas of
Istanbul. In this manner, the urban transformation projects of Süleymaniye shifts from an
economic dimension to an ideological plane. As a part of their ideological agenda, the
agents of power were involved with identification which is defined as the formalized,
codified, objectified systems of categorization developed by powerful, authoritative
institutions (Cooper, 2005).

After a period of dominant national secularism, which was identified with Kemalism,
Islamism in Turkey arose as a social and political reaction against the hegemony of the
state (Gülalp , 1997). With the rising conservative trends in Turkey, the governing Islamist
party promotes the traditional and religious values of the past. Especially Ottoman cultural
heritage, after being neglected and despised almost for half a century, became a popular
topic to promotev. The “greatness” of the Empire, “richness” of the culture, their “tolerance”
for ethnic and religious diversity, and the aesthetic “superiority” of the art and architecture
were mostly emphasized by official channels. Tulip festivals organized by the local
governments of AKP surely reminds the Tulip Period of the Ottoman Empire. Calligraphy
exhibitions, Ottoman music concerts, Quran reading ceremonies were organized to
celebrate the anniversary of Istanbul’s conquest. Ottoman style architecture and
decorative elements started being used, especially in symbolically significant buildings
(Tekeli, 2008). The conversion of transformer stations into miniature Turkish houses
reflects the nostalgic image of architecture. Similarly, “resurrection” of Süleymaniye,
exemplifies the ambitious glorification of Ottoman art and architecture and demonstrates
the longing for the “glorious” days of the Ottoman Empire to create a common identity
based on Ottoman nostalgia.

Even though there are contradicting and unclear declarations about the Istanbul Museum-
City Project, the main focus of the plan would apparently be the Ottoman cultural heritage.
Nevzat Er, the mayor of Eminonu district, declared that Süleymaniye Neighborhood
became the pilot area for the Istanbul Museum-City Project. According to Er, the area
would keep its residential character and he stated “There will be housing in this area
instead of hotels or residences. Once, Ottoman elites used to live in the district; that is
what we are hoping to achieve right now.vi” Although his statement contradicts with the
Prime Minister Erdogan’s aim for converting the area to a tourism centervii, it gives clues
about his motivation about the project: Ottoman Nostalgia.

Erdoğan’s words for Eminonu summarize JDP’s approach for the district: “I saw Istanbul
as a synopsis of Turkey and Istanbul within the city of Istanbul is being represented by

7 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

Eminonu. Eminonu is accepted as the zero-point of the world and it is the center of
civilization, culture, knowledge, science, architecture, aesthetics and enlightenment.viii”
Likewise, when introducing the project, Istanbul mayor Kadir Topbaş underlined their
purpose as: “When we complete the project, I want the visitors to feel and live the
atmosphere of 100 - 150 years ago. I want to regain the qualities that were once existed
here.ix” An architect working for KIPTAS for the Süleymaniye urban transformation project,
accepted the fact that the local government asked them to make replicas of 19th century
Ottoman houses for Süleymaniye. He stressed that they did not accept their offer and
instead proposed sympathetic infill projects for the empty lots within the area and
managed to convince them. He stated that they will design only two replica buildings in a
single street where all the other houses kept their authentic timber character except for
those two and they don’t have any reconstruction documents. He continued “There, I
accepted their offer for keeping the 19th century fabric and to create the 19th century
atmosphere all along the street.”
Resurrecting the heritage of the Ottoman Empire is a part of the Islamist tradition and a
policy for identity construction. The question of identity has recently become a hot topic for
social, historical, psychological, political and philosophical debate and this paper is not
intending to search answers for this phenomenon (Rachman, 1995). However, it does
intend to underline the fact that urban transformation projects being implemented in
Süleymaniye are not solely financial or political, but there exists an important ideological
dimension. The questions ‘Who I am?’ and ‘Where do I belong?’ carry significant political
value and have crucial importance for the individuals of the society. Philip Gleason,
defines the identity dilemma as “[A] challenge to every individual to decide where he/she
stood with respect to the traditional values, beliefs and institutions that were being called
into question, and with respect to the contrasting interpretations being offered.” (Gleason,
2006) In this manner, where Turkish citizens stand, with respect to the Ottoman tradition
and Islamic religion, is believed to determine their social standings and political
preferences. However, identification will not result in the internal sameness,
distinctiveness, or groupness that agents of power would like to achieve; since
identification is contextual and situational by its nature (Cole, 1985).

“Children of the Republic” loyally attached to Ataturk’s doctrines, accepted urban

transformation plans in Süleymaniye as a divergence from the modernism ideal.
According to seculars, creating a 19th century Ottoman neighborhood with the replicas of
vernacular Ottoman houses is a cultural crime and is just a meaningless effort for
resurrecting the Ottoman legacyx. Such a project is believed to target the newly emerging
social group – a conservative high-income class- having close relations with the ruling
party and fulfill their nostalgic ideals. According to Svetlana Boym, nostalgia is longing for
a home that no longer exists or has never existed; it is a sentiment of loss and
displacement (Boym, 2001). Nostalgia does not yearn for a different place; it yearns for a
different time or better to say it is a superimposition of the past and future in a single
frame. The nostalgia for the lost Empire, longing for a transcendental state of power and
glory, is one of the powerful images shaping the identity of the conservative group in
Turkey. The image of the Ottoman Empire, especially during the reign of Suleyman the
Magnificent, describes the ideal and perfect condition of being. Actually, such a
transcendental state has never existed but the iconic image of the Ottoman Empire is
being promoted as a transcendental symbol of tradition and religion. On the contrary, the
Ottoman image represents the ruthless dark ages of backwardness for the
secularist/nationalist group. So, any attempt for Ottoman revival would be accepted as a
betrayal against the Kemalist values. Yearning for the Ottoman nostalgia is a deviation
from Ataturk ideals and from the Westernization utopia of modern Turkey.

I, here, argue that Ottoman nostalgia is as problematic as the strictly progressive and
nationalist approach as an ideology. Ideological connotations for urban transformation or
gentrification projects, influencing a wide range of the population, would broaden the

8 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

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

Tarlabaşı Distict - Commodifying the “Other”

Tarlabaşı District, another urban dereliction area located in Beyoğlu, is one of the selected
areas of urban transformation by the law 5366 together with Sulukule, Sülaymaniye and
Küçük Çekmece. Tarlabaşı is located on the North of the cultural and recreational axis,
Istiklal Street and positioned on the West of Talimhane, a recently pedestrianized hotels
quarter. Currently, Beyoğlu region turned out to hold the most attractive entertainment and
cultural attraction spots of the city, attracting millions of visitors every week. The
gentrification projects in Cihangir and Galata and The Beautiful Beyoğlu Project gradually
changed the face of the district into an urban hot-spot. In such a context, the location of
Tarlabaşı is accepted as extremely valuable, actually too valuable to inhabit its current
residents. A marginalized and lowest-income section of the population, including illegal
migrants, international refuges, displaced Kurds, transvestites and Roman Gypsies,
sheltered in Tarlabaşı, turning the area into a “social wasteland” (Ünal, 2008).

The area was developed as a residential quarter for the middle class non-Muslim and
Levantine inhabitants of the area, those being unable to afford a higher standard of living
around Grand Rue de Pera (Belge, 2007). The masonry apartments built for the Levantine
and non-Muslim families during the 19th century were characteristic to the area. Tarlabaşı
region is said to be largest urban area in Istanbul keeping its authentic architectural fabric
(Bartu, 2006). The hybrid character of the row houses with their projections and art-
nouveau decorations are believed to be a unique mixture of Turkish (Ottoman vernacular)
and European architecture. The district is stated as an urban conservation area by the
Council of Monuments.

Tarlabaşı district has experienced another urban intervention by the local government, not
long ago, in 1986 which was known as the demolitions of Dalan. Tarlabaşı Boulevard was
carved out of the residential fabric, demolishing more than 300 historic buildings, for the
task of “giving Istanbul a metropolitan character”. This project, like other urban renewal
projects was interpreted as a conflict between “modernists” and “conservatives” (Bartu,
2006). Against severe criticisms the project was realized and disconnected Tarlabaşı from
the rest of the socio-economic platform and intensified the marginalization of the social
fabric. Two decades after the demolition, in May 2008, another Urban Renewal Project
was introduced by the mayor of Beyoğlu Municipality Ahmet M. Demircan, Minister of
Tourism and Culture Ertuğrul Günay, and several representatives of GAP Construction
Company. The scene was a perfect example of a state-led gentrification project,
presenting the collaboration of the central authority, the local government, and the
financial investors. What was lacking in this scene was a representative of the local
community or a member of the Tarlabaşı Neighborhood Association. In this project local
residents of the district were accepted as trouble-makers that had to be solved
immediately. Actually law 5366, equipped the local authority with all necessary measures
to ensure a negotiation for the “benefit” of both parties.

The complicated and long-discussed social dimension of the gentrification project is

outside the scope of this paper. Here I would like present a different perspective and
analyze the proposed projects from an architectural point of view considering the symbolic
aspects of the project and the area as well. Istanbul in general and Beyoğlu in particular
had a particular importance for the Islamist parties. Being the most Westernized and
Europeanized section of the city, the conquest of Beyoğlu by conservative political parties

9 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

had a significant symbolic meaning. Ayfer Bartu (2006) argues that Islamist parties hoped
to resurrect the idealized Ottoman social context by embracing all ethnic and religious
groups and Beyoğlu would be their showcase. However their populist agenda could not
last long against the global profit making mechanisms and eventually local authorities
adapted to the idea of the “global city” for “global investors”. The latest urban
transformation projects being implemented in Istanbul is a solid proof of this mental shift.
“The capital does not have religion or nationality” is a well repeated quote by the Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, defending the international investmentsxi. Apparently, one of the
major goals of the recent urban transformation projects was to generate profit through
urban property, not only for the local authority but also for their corporate supporters. GAP
Construction Company (GAP) that was commissioned for the Urban Transformation
project of Tarlabaşı in April 2007 (Göksu, 2008), was a branch of Çalık Holding Group and
it was severely criticized for having close ties with the ruling Justice and Development
Party.

The architectural projects offered by GAP covers the Bülbül, Çukur ve Şehit Muhtar
neighborhoods. The projects aims to renew 278 apartment buildings in nine blocks with
more than 20,000 square meters of land area. The construction company agreed on
having the 52% of the project, leaving the 48% to the localsxii. The projects, designed
by nine star architects, including Han Tümertekin, Mehmet Alper, Hasan Çalışlar-Kerem
Erginoğlu, Cem İlhan-Tülin Hadi, Nuran Karakaş, and Yavuz Selim Sepin, who were well
advertised and promoted in the mediaxiii. The project had a different architectural approach
and revealed an ambitious perspective to the problem of urban renovation. Without
considering the social dimension of the project, we have to accept that the design
program has the potential to open new dimensions for the renovation and conservation
programs in Turkey. Faruk Göksu (2008), in his strategic and social plan for negotiation,
emphasized that this renewal project could be an opportunity for the area and could be
considered as a chance for the utilization of architectural heritage.

Apparently, the conventional conservation strategy of keeping the facade of an historic

building or reconstructing the structure by replicating the original elevation and making
necessary changes within the original limits of the building was challenged in this project.
Not only the function of the old buildings (270 of 296 buildings are registered as historic)
but also their structural system, spatial limitations, interior-exterior relations, and even
their scale were modified in this program. Consequently, this ambitious project became
the target of Chamber of Architects and Tarlabaşı Neighborhood Association (TNA). Erdal
Aybek, the representative of TNA harshly criticized the project and defined the proposed
buildings as “matchboxes” or “ice blocks of 16 storey”, counting the underground parking.
He blamed the designing architects for not analyzing the social fabric of the area and
ignoring the actual needs of its inhabitants. He underlined the social gap that would occur
with the realization of the proposed “gated” project.

The projects appear to be against the conventional conservation criteria of the Council of
Monuments or other national or international preservation committees. One of the most
famous architects of Turkey, Han Tümertekin was against such prejudices and told us that
“The projects seem to be flexible and open for architectural manipulation; but this is not
true. Every single step of conventional preservation and restoration techniques and
regulations are strictly followed in this process.” His firm is designing the largest parcel in
Tarlabaşı and Han Tümertekin believed that the process will last longer than expected
due to social and bureaucratic problems. He argued that they care about the social
dimension of the project as well; and do their best to provide their share of property to the
ones already living here. Tümertekin was aware of the fact that this project will inevitably
create a transformation in the social structure of Tarlabaşı; but he underlined that their aim
is not social refinement or sublimation.

10 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

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

Conclusion - Tarlabaşı vs. Süleymaniye

Urban transformation projects of the two districts differ in terms of architectural approach
and preservation mentalities as well: The restoration and renovation projects held in
Süleymaniye were kept behind sealed doors with limited information shared with the
public. However the audacious projects of Tarlabaşı commissioned by a private
construction company and designed by star architects were publicly revealed and even
advertised. The idea of establishing a residential fabric in the Ottoman mansions of the
Süleymaniye was no longer valid for the commercialized streets of Tarlabaşı. The
conservative and nostalgic approach especially for the facades of old “Turkish houses” of
Süleymaniye, leaves its place to a large scale and aggressive transformation and
modification of the apartments structurally, spatially and visually in Tarlabaşı.

The historical distinction between the Historic

Peninsula and Pera is still valid. (Figure 3)
Today, both districts’ -Eminönü and Beyoğlu-
municipalities are under the rule of Justice and
Development Party together with Istanbul
Metropolitan Municipality. However their
approaches towards urban transformation
projects are considerably different for the two
districts of Istanbul. As expressed by Bartu
(2006), the Islamist ideology accepted Historic
Peninsula as the “real” Istanbul and promoted
its architectural, social, and cultural
preservation and even reconstruction.
Reconstruction of Ottoman houses in
Süleymaniye is a nostalgic attempt to
resurrect the social life of the Ottoman
neighborhood.

On the other hand, Tarlabaşı Urban

Renovation Project has a totally different
agenda. In this context, the main purpose of
the project is not preservation or resurrection
of the Levantine heritage; on the contrary the
program proposes an overall physical Figure 3.
transformation and socio-cultural change. The Süleymaniye &
facade of the buildings in Tarlabaşı is the sole Tarlabaşı
component of preservation (being a profit
generator for the project) while the overall socio-economic structure of the district is
subject to change. A brand new identity for the district is to be defined with this project.

In this paper, I would like to argue that the urban transformation projects in Istanbul reflect
the socio-economical, political, and ideological trends in Turkey such as Westernization,
industrialization, globalization, privatization, and liberalization in macro scale. However, in
micro scale, the distinct approaches towards separate historic lands of Istanbul are

11 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

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

12 Proceedings, International IAPS-CSBE & HOUSING Network 2009

i
E. Kalkan, “İstanbul UNESCO’dan Çıkartılabilir”, Hürriyet Gazetesi, 08.07.2003.
ii
Resmi Gazete. Decree: 2005/9668. No: 26023. 14.12.2005
iii
“Geçmiş Diriliyor”. Radikal. 21.04.2006
iv
Y. Ateş. “İstanbul'un Uydu Görüntüsü Ürküttü”. Sabah. 17.02.2004
v
A. Özyurt. “Osmanlı Hayalleri”. Radikal. 27.04.2008
vi
G. Aras.”Süleymaniye’de Neler Oluyor?”. www.arkitera.com. 16.02.2007
vii
BirGün. “Erdoğan: İstanbul Için Gerekirse Zor Kullanacağız”. 18.06.2006.
viii
BirGün. “Erdoğan: İstanbul Için Gerekirse Zor Kullanacağız”. 18.06.2006.
ix
“Süleymaniye'de Kentsel Dönüşüm Startı Verildi”. www.arkitera.com. 07.03.2005
x
Mimarlara Mektuplar. “Çağdaş Koruma Düşüncesi ve Süleymaniye Projesi Üzerine”. December 2007
xi
“Tayyip Erdoğan: Paranın Dini, Irkı, Vatanı Olmaz, Para Civa Gibidir”, www.nethaber.com, 03.04.09
xii
“278 Bina Onarılarak, Tarlabaşı'na Yeni Bir Çehre Kazandırılıyor”, www.arkitera.com, 17.04.07
xiii
“Tarlabaşı 9 Ünlü Mimara Emanet”, www.mimdap.org, 06.07.08

References
Armağan, M., 2007, Osmanlıyı İmparatorluk Yapan Şehir İstanbul (Timaş Yayınları)

Bartu, A., 2006, “Eski Mahallelerin Sahibi Kim?”, Ed. Ç. Keyder, İstanbul Küresel ile Yerel Arasında (Metis)

Belge, M., 2007, İstanbul Gezi Rehberi (İstanbul, İletişim)

Boym, S., 2001, The Future of Nostalgia (Basic Boks)

Burkay, H.Ö., 2006, Social Policy of Urban Transformation:Social Housing Policies in Turkey from the 1980s to Present,
Unpublished Thesis, Bogazici University

Cole, D.B., 1985, “Gentrification, Social Character, and Personal Identity”, American Geographical Society, 75(2), p.142-155

Cooper, F., 2005, Colonialism in Question Theory, Knowledge, History (University of California Press)

Çelik, Z., 1993. Remaking of İstanbul Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley University of California
Press)

Çulcu, M., 2006, Spekülatif Marjinal Tarih Tezleri (İstanbul, E Yayınları)

Girardelli,P., 2007, “Levantine Architecture in Late Otoman Istanbul”, Eds. M. Cerasi,. A. Petruccioli, A. Sarro, S. Weber,
Multicultural Fabric and Architectural Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean (Beirut)

Girouard, M., 1985, Cities and People A Social and Architectural History (Yale University Press)

Göksu, F., 2008, Tarlabaşı Stratejik Sosyal Plan (Taslak) (2008-2010)

Gleason, P., 2006, “Identifying Identity”. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin
(Routledge)

Gülalp, H., 1997, “Modernization Policies and Islamist Politics in Turkey”. Ed. Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba, Rethinking
Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (University of Washington)

Harvey, D., 2005, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press)

Keyder, Ç., 2006. İstanbul Küresel ile Yerel Arasında (Metis)

Keyder, Ç., 2008, Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar (İletişim)

Le Corbusier, 1987, Journey to the East, Ed. Ivan Zaknic, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press)

Lefebvre, H., 2000. Writings on Cities (Blackwell Publishers)

Ley, D., 1986, “Alternative Explanations for ınner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment”. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers.76(4), p.521-535
Palen, J.J. & B. London, 1984, Gentrification, Displacements and Neighborhood Revitalization (State University of New York
Press)

Rachman, J., 1995, The Identitiy in Question (Routledge)

Shaw, S.J. & E.K. Shaw, 2002, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University)

Smith, N., 2002, “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy” (Blackwell Publishers)

Tekeli, D., 2008, “Erk ve Mimar”. 20. Uluslararası Yapı ve Yaşam Kongresi (Bursa)

Uzun, C.N., 2001. Gentrification in İstanbul: A Diagnostic Study (Netherlands Geographical Studies)

Ünsal, Ö., 2008. “‘Urban Transformation’ as State-Led Property Transfer: Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul”.
Orienting Istanbul Conference (Berkeley: University of California)