The Conflicted CityHypergrowth, Urban Renewal and

Mass Urbanization in Istanbul

The Conflicted CityHypergrowth, Urban Renewal and

Mass Urbanization in Istanbul

Carrie Sturts DossickLiz Dunn

Ian FishburnNatalie Gualy

Kathryn Rogers MerlinoJason 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

INTRODUCTION

THE CONFLICTED BUILT CITY: OLD CITY /NEW CITY THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEMOLITION OF ISTANBUL’S INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS

The 21st Century Republic and the GecekonduA Selective Seismic LawThe Case of SulukuleTarlabasi, Fener, and Balat‘Starchitects’ and ‘City Planning’ within Cities

THE CONFLICTED ECOLOGICAL CITY: GROWTH CITY / SUSTAINABLE CITYSUSTAINABILITY IN ISTANBUL: “THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE”

The Systems of the CityPerspectives on Sustainability

THE CONFLICTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CITY: GLOBAL CITY / LOCAL CITY WHAT’S THE ROLE OF REAL ESTATE IN NURTURING “CREATIVE CULTURE” AND LOCAL ENTREPRENEURISM?

Istanbul to Foreign InvestorsThe Creative Class of Istanbul CONCLUSION: CITY AT A CROSSROADS

REFERENCES

ENDNOTES

08

2528

30

3133

14

06

1618192022

24

36

40

42

6

PREFACEIn 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.

7

2012 Runstad Fellows (left to right): Kathryn Rogers Merlino, Ian Fishburn, Carrie Sturts Dossick, Liz Dunn, Jason Twill, Natalie Gualy

8

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

TurkeyGreece

Istanbul

Egypt

Syria

RussiaRomaniaBlack Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 1: Map

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 western-oriented 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

9

Marmara Sea

Black Sea

Anatolia

Avrupa Yakası

Figure 2: Regional Map

10

While Turkey has always cultivated strong trading relationships with Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, most recently Istanbul has also become an emerging pan-regional 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

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Estimated 2025 Population2012 Population

m= 1,000,000 m= 1,000,000

11

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 mega-malls 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 middle-class 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

12

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.

13

14

01THE CONFLICTED BUILT CITY: OLD CITY /NEW CITY THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEMOLITION OF ISTANBUL’S INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS

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

“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

15

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.”TURKISH PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN

17

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

MARMARA SEA

GOLDEN SEA

N

Figure 7: Residents observe demolition of Sulukule(photo credit: squattercity.blogspot.com)

Figure 6: World Heritage boundaries, as redefined in 1998-9 in collaboration with

the UNESCO World Heritage Centre

20

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,

Figure 8: Images of Tarlabaşı before developer rehabilitation

21

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 lower- density 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.

Figure 9: (left) before (right) after GAP Insaat rehabilitation

22

‘STARCHITECTS’ AND ‘CITY PLANNING’ WITHIN CITIES

In areas closer to the high-rise business district of Levent, the colorful tightly-packed gecekondu vernacular of the last fifty years is being replaced by Dubai-style 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

23

Figure 11,12: (top) Tago Architects (bottom) Hakan Dalokay & Boran Ekinci Architects

24

02THE CONFLICTED ECOLOGICAL CITY: GROWTH CITY / SUSTAINABLE CITYSUSTAINABILITY 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.

25

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.”

ASU AKSOY, PROFESSOR AT ISTANBUL BILGI UNIVERSITY

30

26

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

27

Figure 13: GIS maps

28

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?

29

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.

Source: Urban Age Istanbul Survey 2009 Source: Urban Age Istanbul Survey 2009

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN ISTANBUL SOLVING TRANSPORT PROBLEM

30

03THE 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.

31

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

32

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 Figure 15: Outdoor dining in Galata

33

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?

34

“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 Figure 17: Istanbul’s suburbs

35

36

CONCLUSION : CITY AT A CROSSROADSIstanbul 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

37

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 long-term 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 decision-making 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-car-culture”, 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.

38

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.

39

40

REFERENCESBehar, 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.

41

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/.

42

ENDNOTES1 Christopher Torchia, “Istanbul: A straining metropolis dreams big “ Seattle Times, March 11, 2012.2 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).3 Miriam B. Weiner, “World’s Most Visited Cities,” http://travel.usnews.com/features/Worlds_Most_Visited_Cities/. 4 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).5 Ergun Özbudun and Ali Kazancigil, Atatürk, founder of a modern state (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1981).6 Ibid.7 Metropolitan Policy Program, “Global Metro Monitor 2011: Volatility, Growth and Recovery,” (Brookings Institute, 2011).8 Neyran Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul,” in Megacities: Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability, ed. André Sorensen (Springer; 1st Edition, 2011).9 Boyaci Y. Tokatli N., “The changing morphology of commercial activity in Istanbul.,” Cities 16(1999). 10 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).11 Ibid., p. 24.12 Deyan Sudjic, “The City Too Big to Fail,” Urban Age: Istanbul City of Intersections (2009).13 Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul..”14 Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul.”15 A. Geyman, “Impacts of Bosporus Bridges on the Istanbul Metropolitan Settlement Areas.,” in Degredation & Development (2011).16 IMP presentations illustrate the vast amount of mega-projects currently.17 “Turkish Forum,” World Turkish News Coalition, November 12, 2011. Prime Minister Erdoğan was previously the mayor of Istanbul, from 1994-1998.18 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

43

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 2003.19 The term gecekondu derives from the Turkish words “gece”, meaning “night” and “kondu” – meaning “placed” or “landed.”20 Orhan Esan, “The City of Istanbul: Material Production and Production of the Discourse,” Substitute City(2010).21 Cem Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap İlyas Mahalle, (Suny Press, 2003 ).22 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.23 Urban Age City Data, London School of Economics, 200924 Hacer Foggo, “The Sulukule Affair: Roma against Expropriation,” Roma Rights Quarterly 4(2007).25 World Heritage Committee, “Unesco Expert Mission Report,” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006).26 Jessica Bourque, “Poor but Proud: Istanbul Neighborhood Faces Gentrification,” New York Times, July 4, 2012.27 Ibid.28 Turan, “Toward an Econological Urbaism for Istanbul.” David Dombey, “Erdogan’s Grant Ambitions For Istanbul,” Washington Post, August 31 2012.29 David Dombey, “Erdogan’s Grant Ambitions For Istanbul,” Washington Post, August 31 2012.30 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).

31 Sudjic, “The City Too Big to Fail.”32 Ibid.33 Erisu Dautas Senerdem, “Going Green, Still Trying to Take Root in Istanbul,” Hurriyet Daily News 2010.34 Urban Age City Survey, Ipsos, 200935 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).36 Ibid.37 Ibid., p. 129. 38 Brahim Baz, “Development and Application of GIS Based Analysis/Synthesis

44

Modeling Techniques for Urban Planning of Istanbul Metropolitan Area.”39 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). 40 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). 41 Tokatli N., “The changing morphology of commercial activity in Istanbul..”42 Geyman, “Impacts of Bosporus Bridges on the Istanbul Metropolitan Settlement Areas..”; ibid. 43 Doug Saunders, Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping Our World (New York: Pantheon, 2011). 44 Ibid.45 Dorian Jones, “Is Alcohol Apartheid Coming to Istanbul?,” http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/08/alcohol-apartheid-coming-istanbul/3016/46 Constanze Letsch, “Istanbul’s Al Fresco Diners Lose Their Chairs,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/05/istanbul-cafes-lose-outdoor-tables 47 “Real estate sales to foreigners reach $1.1 bln in one month “, Hurriyet Daily News 2012.48 Gila Benmayor, “Making a Difference in Shopping Mall Maddness,” Hurriyet Daily News, October 23 2012.49 Kopeykin, Boris “Ratings Direct – Istanbul (city of)”, Standard & Poor’s (2009): n. pag. Web. 20 October 2012.50 Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul..”51 Amanda Erickson, “Land Transfer of the Day: 4.1 Million Acres,” The Atlantic: Cities, May 12 2012.52 Richard Florida, “For Creative Cities, the Sky Has Its Limit,” The Wall Street Journal, July 27 2012.53 Richard Florida, “Talent Beats Trade in Economic Development,” The Atlantic Cities, September 11 2012;

45