Page 1

History of Urban Design  WiSe 13/14

|

Kate Bitz  343181

Alejandro Dones  356494  Hande Gür  358924  Steffen Klotz  321690

Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary

I stanbul


TU Berlin Fakultät VI Institut für Soziologie Planungs- und Architektursoziologie History of Urban Design Winter Semester 2013/2014 Emily Kelling Benedikt Stockmayer Handed in by: Kate Bitz  343181 Alejandro Dones  356494 Hande Gür  358924 Steffen Klotz  321690


Content

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

3

Content Introduction: Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul........................................................................ 4 Defining Urban Design – Process and Product............................................................................................................. 4 Context: History and legal framework........................................................................................................................................ 6 Case Study: Sulukule...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Case Study: santralistanbul............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 25 References.................................................................................................................................................................. 28 List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................. 30


4

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Introduction

Introduction: Exploring the Ambiguities of Urban Design in Contemporary Istanbul

Defining Urban Design Process and Product

This report will examine the social, political and spatial

Istanbul, this report defines urban design in an expan-

conditions under which urban development progresses

sive way, with a focus on its manifestation as a “mul-

in Istanbul today, with the goal of learning more about

tidisciplinary activity of shaping and managing urban

the challenges and tensions involved in the profession

environments, interested in both the process of this

of urban design by analyzing two case studies within

shaping and the spaces it helps shape” (Manidapour

the context of the city of Istanbul. To this end, the re-

1997, p. 22). Here, urban design is seen as a process

port deals briefly with the history of the city of Istanbul,

involving public and private institutions as well as in-

major urban planning initiatives, and planning law (with

dividuals and social movements as actors. Products of

a focus on the issues of informal settlements) before

urban design, such as those which will be examined in

examining two case studies that further pinpoint the

the case studies below, can be analyzed and evaluated

issues upon which we wish to focus. The questions the

as the product of these complex processes.

report seeks to explore are: What are the key aspects

Therefore, the quality of the design process is a key fac-

of good urban design? And, how if at all is it possible to

tor in the quality of its product. A good urban design

realize quality urban design projects in a highly contest-

process will be defined here as one which substantively

ed political and social environment? This introduction

includes all actors and stakeholders, in a way that is

will summarize the group’s view on ideal planning and

both legal and viewed as fair to the actors involved (see

execution of an urban design project; a lens through

Figure 1). Good urban design processes require, then, a

which the case studies can be viewed.

substantive societal consensus as to the meaning of le-

In order to fully examine the complex webs of actors, goals and methods which are in play in contemporary

gality and fairness in the arena of planning and building. In addition, although „legal“ and „fair“ may sometimes conflict as goals in a concrete situation, good design processes are difficult or even impossible under a legal regime which constantly undercuts some stakeholders’

Professionals Government

understanding of fairness – or even its own rules as to what is and is not legal. Of course, a broad social con-

Citizens

sensus on the issues of legality and fairness is also no Investors Institutions

b a l a n ce d

guarantee that an individual urban design process will be well-administered, fair, or inclusive of all the stakeholders who are (or should be) involved. The onus to

Figure 1: Balanced Urban Design

provide a good process rests upon those who facilitate


Introduction

Exploring  the  Ambiguiti es  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary Istanbul

ECONOMICS

5

ECOLOGY

Production & Resourcing Exchange & Transfer Accounting & Regulation Consumption & Use Labour & Welfare Technology & Infrastructure Wealth & Distribution

Materials & Energy Water & Air Flora & Fauna Habitat & Settlements Built-Form & Transport Embodiment & Food Emission & Waste

Organization & Governance Law & Justice Communication & Critique Representation & Negotiation Security & Accord Dialogue & Reconciliation Ethics & Accountability

Identity & Engagement Creativity & Recreation Memory & Projection Belief & Ideas Gender & Generations Enquiry & Learning Health & Wellbeing

POLITICS

CULTURE

Figure 2: Evaluaiti ng Sustainability

it.  Linked  to  the  questi on  of  good  process  is  that  of 

of  urban  design  will  include  a  substanti ve  att empt  to 

the quality of the design product. Within research and

deal with the issues of sustainability.

discussions, the group which prepared this report has

In sum, this report will seek to examine the conditi ons 

found that it is quite simple to fi nd examples in which 

of urban design in Istanbul under the aspects described

an acceptably legal and fair process is no guarantee of

above: Are urban design processes legal, fair and inclu-

either  a  truly  binding  agreement  for  implementati on, 

sive?  Are  the  products  of  these  processes  striving  to-

or  of  a  good  product  (i.e.  quality  urban  space)  at  the 

ward sustainable urban development?

end of the process. In some ways, good design will always remain subjecti ve and depend upon the viewer’s  taste  and  prioriti es.  However, the group  sees  sustainability  –  here  broadly  defi ned  as  sustainability  in  the  ecological,  social,  politi cal  and  cultural  spheres  (see  Figure 2) – as an aspect of good design which is not up  for debate (James 2013, p. 24-25). Balancing the various  aspects of sustainability is always a matt er of prioritysetti   ng on the part of the designer, and it is unlikely that  any project will be able to achieve a perfect balance of  sustainability in all spheres. However, any good product 


6

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Context: History and legal framework

Context

The reason for uncontrolled urbanization, beside migration and rapid growth, was also government poli-

In the post war period, in the beginning of 1950’s Turkey

cies. After the foundation of the Republic, all sources

met with new modern technology for the agriculture

were directed to Ankara to create a capital city from

sector and pushed for changes in national economy to-

what before had been a small town, and to strengthen

wards Industrialization. This development triggered the

industrialization in Istanbul instead of urbanization. The

migration by reducing the need for agricultural labor

shift in transportation planning shows the urban sprawl

force. In consequence, the migration was encouraged

development throughout the 60’s and hereafter. In the

by actual liberal policies to the big cities, especially to

early Republic, transportation planning was railway ori-

Istanbul, according to find job opportunities (Yalçıntan,

ented. After 1950 it was based on highways and mo-

Erbaş 2003, p. 93). As a result of job loss in rural areas,

torways. After the construction of the first Bosporus

city life offered new job possibilities and became attrac-

Bridge in 1973, urban sprawl (see Figure 3) changed

tive. Istanbul was strongly affected by this process and

the geography of urban development in Istanbul. New

the city grew rapidly and uncontrolled. Istanbul’s popu-

settlements were located along the transportation axis

lation, which was 1 million in 1950, became 5 million in

instead of geographic characteristics. ‘From the mid-

1980 and 10 million in 2000 (Keyder 2005, p. 125).

twentieth century, rapid economic and population

Figure 3: Urban footprint between 1950-2010

1950 1950

1980 1980

1990 1990

2010 2010


Context

Exploring  the  Ambiguiti es  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary Istanbul

growth,  together  with  new  transportati on  technologies,  gave  rise  to  urban  sprawl  overriding  all  previous  natural  thresholds.  The  constructi on  of  the  internati onal motorway and the fi rst bridge over the Bosporus 

1950 - 60 First wave of migration and first settlements

signaled a major blow to the principles that had guided urban development over centuries (Enlil 2011, p. 10)’. Because of this lack of control, Istanbul’s urbanizati on  was  formatt ed  by  itself.  ‘In  the  absence  of  signifi cant  housing provision by the public sector or private indus-

1970 New municipalities and multi-story buildings resembling apartment buildings

trial employers, the migrants who poured into the citi es  had to improvise their own soluti ons. The limited public  housing policies were mainly targeted to the needs of the middle-income and upper-middle-income groups. Tens of thousands of migrants therefore built them-

1980 Allowance up to 4 story high buildings and attemp of municipalities to regulate informal settlements

selves squatt er houses, ‘Gecekondus’, mainly on public  land (Enlil 2011, p. 12)’ (see Figure 4). The approaches  of  the  insti tuti ons  dealing  with  the  urban  context  of  these informal neighbor-hoods can be described into three major periods (Çelik 2008, p. 40; Özdemir 2010,  p. 1112).

1980 - 2000 Forced migration, new settlements and foundation of TOKI

1. 1950-1980 The origin of gecekondus takes place in this period due to the defi cit of housing in Turkey’s big citi es, and from  a  strong  migrati on  from  the  countryside  to  the  citi es  (Candan et al. 2008, p. 7). Istanbul’s unconstrained urban growth incited by uncontrolled populati on growth 

2000 - 2004 TOKI buying cheap land on the outskirts of the city

and  the  constructi on  of  ‘Gecekondus’  could  not  have  been  stopped  by  development  plans  (Yalçıntan,  Erbaş  2003, p. 96). The authoriti es’ response to this ‘problem’  followed  what  can  be  named  an  ‘amnesty  approach’.  From  the  beginning  of  the  fi rst  informal  sett lements  in  1949  unti l  the  mid-1980s,  a  policy  of  legalizing  the  squatt er  houses  was  followed  by  the  municipali-

2004 - now Evictions taking place and use of regeneration as a way to increase the real estate value Figure 4: Gecekondu formati on process

7


8

Exploring  the  Ambiguiti es  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary Istanbul

Context

ti es in Istanbul. Under this framework, vast areas of the 

2. 1980-2000

city were formed, communiti es and new municipaliti es 

In  1980,  because  of  the  politi cal  and  economic  insta-

appeared, and a huge network of formal and informal

bility in Turkey, a military interventi on took place. As a 

economy  was  created  allowing  the  living  of  the  mi-

result, Turkey’s economic agenda was changed to ‘a set 

grants.

of measures encouraged deregulati on and the diminu-

The tolerance of the authoriti es to this process of dwell-

ti on of the role of the state in order to sti mulate a free-

ing during this period can easily be understood under

market economy (Enlil 2011, p. 13)’. 

the scope of economic purposes: workforce was nec-

This  development  also  caused  a  shift   in  sectors,  from 

essary (AGFE 2009, p. 9) and allowing people to solve 

industry  to  services.  Istanbul  had  a  powerful  role  in 

their own housing problems by legalizing the former il-

Turkish economy under a radical neoliberal regime, and

legal  sett lements  was  understood  by  the  government 

became a service and fi nancial center (Yalçıntan, Erbaş 

to be the cheaper soluti on than providing housing.

2003, p. 93). This ti me of period was the reinforcing for 

1,1M | 1M

2,2M | 1,7M 3M | 2,2M

4,7M | 2,9M

7,3M | 6,7M

10M | 9M

13M

Units to be demolished by TOKI State Institute Statistics Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality

120 000

61 400

400 000 85 000

1949 1950 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 1959 60 61 62 1963 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 2004 05 06 07 08 2009 10 11 12 13 2014

5 000 8 239

1 000 000

Figure 5: Number of Gecekondus in relati on to Istanbul populati on according to diff erent sources


Context

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

9

foreign investments and rise of financial market in Is-

(for a more detailed evolution of the legal framework

tanbul.

through this periods, see Figure 6).

After the foundation of TOKİ – the Mass Housing Ad-

The structural transformation of the market for labor,

ministration – in 1984 the governmental amnesties

new pressures and demands from the land market and

stopped, but the response from the local authorities

property regime, and shifts in the patterns of migration

continued being non-interventionist or even as a facili-

and in the profile of the immigrants, caused impor-

tator of those dynamics. The role of the newly created

tant changes in the city (Keyder 2005, p. 128). Istanbul

TOKİ during these years was mainly giving cheap credits

became a ‘Global City’ with an ongoing privatization

to families allowing them to find dwelling themselves –

process and was formed by city marketing strategies.

frequently in informal settlements – instead of helping

‘Gecekondus’ were able to be sold and rented, thus

to solve the housing deficit directly.

integrated in to property market. According to Urban

By 1985 Turkey’s urban population was bigger than

Age Istanbul report, in 2008, 30% of population worked

rural population, while the urbanization process was

informally, and 50% of housing was informal (see Figure

intensified, and migration continued and accelerated.

5) (Urban Age 2009, p. 38).

‘Population growth rate in Istanbul between 1990 and

With all this evolvements, poor neighborhoods be-

2000 was 37.1%, and in comparison, the increase in the

came a target for urban renewal projects. In the light

built-up land size was 17.9%. These figures show that

of capitalist purposes and reasons, renewal projects

within this period Istanbul has experienced an expan-

and with their evictions process; physically, economi-

sion to become a denser city (Altınok, Cengiz 2008, p.

cally and socially, started. In the last years, big mega

7)’. The physically transformations, which connected

projects in Istanbul have been also on the city agenda,

with globalization, were built in the time period, such

which is likely to have various effects on Istanbul’s for-

as the first gated community and shopping mall were

est areas and water resources. The Marmara Highway

built in the end of 1980’s.

Project (see Figure 7) serves as an example of Istanbul’s mega projects. It consists of a whole project package

3. After 2000

with the Northern Marmara Highway, the Third Bos-

A shift in the planning policies takes place with the

phorus Bridge, the new airport with its airport city and

changes in Turkey’s politics and after 2000 the impact

the Canal Istanbul. All these projects where enabled by

of globalization in İstanbul noticeably increased. The

the centralization of planning authorities in 2011, and

rapid legal and planning framework modifications that

are used to stage the national governments power, by

took place in the first years after 2000 following a more

developing the projects of superlatives and having the

neoliberal agenda (Candan et al. 2008, p. 14) started

openings set on historical dates of national importance

turning TOKİ into a more powerful institution, broaden-

(Letsch 2012, online).

ing its scope of work, allowing it to implement for-profit projects and form partnerships with private investors


1949 50 51 52 1953 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1963 64 65 1966 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 1976 77 78 79 80 81 82 1983 1984 85 1986

r hi igh ge gh t t ce bu o b

Figure 6: Evolution of the legal framework in Turkey. Legislation empowering TOKI

L ne aw d c pr we ess 298 e- lle it 1 t r y

F TO ou n

l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 76 ua

tte r

tte r

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

s de ubj im ve ec pr lo t t p o

T d h ar efi e ‘G re ea nit ec ha s io ek bi of n o on lit ab f at ol ge du io is ce La n hm k w & e on ’ pr n du 77 ev t, s 5 as en tio n

l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 63 ua

l ho ega us lis es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq le 49 ua ho ga tte us lis r es at pr ion io of rt a o ll 19 sq 53 ua tte r

10 Context


87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 2002 2003 2004 2005 06 07 08 09 2010 11 2012 13 2014

p tio bu ard n ilt on of be to fo al re l g 19 ec 85 ek on du s

OK n I da

cheap credits to ca. 900000 family housing units in Turkey

Am

M L ex as as as aw s La w e s a s s c id w ur ide end Co cop lus Ho TO xec ign TO nd ign 512 u of en 63 de ba n un e o ion s KI ut me KI ap me 6 in me ri pr tifi 0 i pr n e v n n c el tr g nt sk o c 6 ex nt il f T of g ov t o o o o h c a L o T a pr f zo ed ti pm n f t La al f p e f a O t Pu S K w sf he w op h ne u on au la e u I e 29 nt orm s 59 i b p f s res an th nn a r r l tio ig ic re om 85 pr a cop 98 or in fo d p Ac me t n s ht oj tio e ity g r d la t h e co o t e ct n a of to is nn o un s n as in t d te g s r

L L a a s a pa llow w 5 an ele w 5 tr lit a 39 zo d ct 36 an ie n 3 ne cu ion 6 sf s t ce (A s ltu o or o fo rt as r f h m un r l icl re ally ist at d oc e ne b or io er a 73 w at ica n ta l m ) al te l pr k u l r oj e u ni zo e y d ec r ci ne ts ba s n

tit rs y f le to or de a ge ed pp ce s ly ko fo n r du

in tat La c at clu ute co w pe i n fo nc 4 to ion sion pr rm 9 r p e ofi i ri m ss 66 TO , h o va pa io t o ssi KI ea f in te rt n ri on ’s lth d en to fir ne of sc , a us t r m s h te im op n try e s h d p ip ri e dt ,e pr le s gh of ou d oj m w t ec e w ri ui t t or sm h o ts nt k

TOKI: granting of credits to housing cooperatives

S

ek u bu ro p o ve m m on ild ild m en un du ing u en t a ic p ar s i to t p nd ipa ea n 4 lit la s st ns y or y Context Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul 11


Exploring CANAL the  Ambiguiti   es  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary Istanbul ISTANBUL PROJECT

12

Chapter

Presented April 2011 Opening 2023 $10 billion 50 km long / 140 m wide Commercial ship traffic

NEW AIRPORT

AIRPORT CITY

No Environmental Study

Bid went out May 2013

1,5 million inhabitants

Opening 2017

Consequences

Consequences

$29 billion 7,700 ha 150 mio passengers/year Consequences

Predicted Urban Growth Figure 7: The Northern Marmara Highway Project

Planned Urban Growth

Protected Forests

Existing Highways


Chapter

Exploring  the  Ambiguiti es  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary Istanbul

YAVUZ SULTAN SELIM BRIDGE

NORTHERN MARMARA HIGHWAY

Bid went out June 2013

Bid went out June 2013

Opening 2015

$2.3 billion including bridge

8 driving lanes

414 km

2 railways

5,000 ha deforestation

50 m wide

Consequences

13

1400 m in span 150,000 people corssing/day Consequences

GENERAL INFORMATION All projects realized in a Built-Operate-Transfer Mode 2011: Centralizng of planning authorities enabled projects Violated Laws, Plans and Conventions Masterplan and Environmental Plan Several laws on the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage Turkish Convention Convention of Montreux Consequences Increasing real-estate prizes Possibly real-estate oversupply Population increase to 20 million people Legend Increase of urban sprawl

Deforestation

Drastic population growth

Deterioration of agricultural land

Endangering water ressources

Endangering aquatic ecosystems


14

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case Study: Sulukule

Case  Study:  Sulukule

regeneration projects with the right of expropriation in deteriorated historic areas and zones of degeneration

In regards to government’s new policies, plans for new

(Uysal 2012, p. 14). A series of historical neighborhoods

mega projects and the terms of ‘City Marketing’, poor

were declared as renewal areas by the authorities just

neighborhoods and ‘Gecekondu’ areas became a tar-

after the introduction of the law, including Sulukule

get for urban regeneration projects. In June 2005 the

(Ingın, İslam 2011, p. 126). Sulukule had a complex and

‘Law 5366’ passed, which became the main legal back-

variable process with different stakeholders and its

ground for urban regeneration in Turkey. The law au-

conflicts and clash of power (see Figure 8).

thorized municipalities to implement large scale urban

Sulukule was located in historical peninsula, next to its

Sulukule Platform meetings with Municipality, Turkish Parliament, European Parliament

Sulukule Association of Advancement of Roman Culture and Solidarity hold a press conference Sulukule is an Urban Renewal Project

TOKI signed the contract

Demolitions began in Sulukule

2005 June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov

Law 5366

Sulukule Platform was founded

Sulukule Platform

Citizens

Professionals *Planners, architects *Academics *Researchers

Figure 8: Sulukule. Actors

Institutions *Local *International

Government *Central - TOKI *Municipalities *District councils

Investors


Case  Study:  Sulukule

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

15

defense walls. Sulukule was inhabited by the Romani

acteristics in urban footprint. This traditional neighbor-

people for centuries and was chosen as the first renew-

hood had narrow streets, gardens, squares and foun-

al site in Istanbul (Çiftçioğlu 2009). Its history and ethnic

tains and courtyard house structure, which provided

character created its identity in the historical city cen-

the opportunity to independent families to relate with

ter. After 1990 the entertainment houses, which was

each other (see Figure 10). Beside cultural and social

the main economic working field, were closed. After-

heritage, physical characteristics were important com-

wards the area ruled over mostly by informal economy

ponent of this areas identity.

and high level of poverty. Beside unstable structure problems, it had a special typology for physical char-

Legal proceeding for stay of evictions UNESCO visited Sulukule Flats in Taşoluk were completed

TOKI Project constructions Large scale demolitions

Last house was demolished

Oct Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Nov Oct Dec 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Municipality crews marked the houses

Project is cancelled

Professionals Second Phase

Government

Citizens Initial Phase Institutions

Figure 9: Sulukule. Process Diagram

b a l a n ce d

Investors


16

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case  Study:  Sulukule

Figure 10: Street view before demolitions had started

Sulukule Renewal Project Process

the local municipality started exerting a strong pres-

The urban renewal project for Sulukule was developed

sure on Sulukule low-income inhabitants. In a context

by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Fatih (district)

of informal economy, and under the imminent threat of

Municipality and TOKİ. The purpose of this project was

losing their homes, many of the residents accepted the

‘fix’ informality by formalizing the neighborhood in

initial small offer from TOKI (Uysal 2011, p. 15). ‘Step by

terms of three dimension; socio-cultural patterns and

step, the Romani people living there have been force-

lifestyles; an informal economy; and spatial, physical

fully evicted or manipulated to leave their livelihoods,

characteristics (Ingın, İslam 2011, p. 127).

and their departure is followed by ruthless demolitions

According to ‘Fatih Municipality’ this project was a par-

throughout the area (Çiftçioğlu 2009)’.

ticipative process, which included all the social aspects

As a reaction this project was objected by profession-

and dimensions. It was repeatedly emphasized by Fatih

als, artists, academics, researchers and locals. Local

Municipality that, there won’t be any exclusion. Howev-

resistance formed as reaction to the urban renewal

er with the recently acquired legal authority to execute

project. In June 2006 Sulukule Roman Culture Develop-

expropriations within a period of three months even

ment and Solidarity was founded and afterwards on Ju-

when no agreement was reached (Law 5162 /2004),

ly-August 2006 as a result of cooperation and solidarity


Sulukule Platform

Case  Study:  Sulukule

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

NGOs (Sulukule Association of Advancement of Romani Culture, the Human Settlements Association)

Locals in Sulukule

Independent activists (professionals, artist, academics, researchers)

The Chamber of City and Regional Planners The Chamber of Architects Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects Independent researchers, social workers and professionals

Media

17

Informing the public, what is happening, why is happening

STOP (Autonomous Planners without Limits)

Alternative approach Sustainable Sulukule

As a Mediators between different groups

Romani director Tony Gatliff Manu Chao Gogol Bordello International Artist and Musicians Support

Domestic Support

Unesco Helsinki Citizens Assembly, European Roma Rights Centre Scholars from University of London College International Support

Figure 11: Sulukule Platform. Actors

process between different institutions was an intensive

cess. For an example ‘40 Days 40 Nights Sulukule’ event

resistance, demonstration and debate against this proj-

managed to stop for a while all demolitions and sales of

ect (Çetingöz 2008, p. 28) emerged as an opposition.

houses. With this event sensitivity in public opinion for

In March 2007 Sulukule Platform was founded, which is

the demolitions and the restoration process was cre-

very disciplined and multi-actor, with a dynamic forma-

ated and it was stated that a contributive planning ap-

tion, and it has been actively involved in urban renewal

proach which is sustainable and where the local people

processes realized in Sulukule (Ingın 2008b, p. 3) (see

may take place in is required (Ingın 2008a, p. 15). Alter-

Figure 11). ‘This platform defends that the protection

native approach for sustainable Sulukule by STOP (Au-

is not limited only to the extent of physical protection,

tonomous Planners without Limits), which considered

but is a integrated process considering all cultural, so-

the social dimension, was suggested by this evolution.

cial and economic elements, and it advocates that all

Sulukule Platform didn’t succeed to preserve the hous-

relevant local, central and international actors should

ing stock in Sulukule (see Figure 12). Ambiguous prop-

be involved in the process (Ingın 2008b, p. 3)’. Several

erty rights and legal and bureaucratic obstacles lim-

meetings, public events and campaigns were organized

ited Sulukule Platfrom’s actions. Lack of wide political

by this platform in according to stop this eviction pro-

support due to ethnic prejudices and the conservative


18

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case  Study:  Sulukule

Figure 12: View during the demolitions

Figure 13: Present Apperance of Sulukule with TOKİ buildings

character of the Fatih district restrained the social base

cial awareness, Sulukule after three years demolishing

(Uysal 2012, p. 19).

process was completely destroyed. Sulukule resistance

Through the evictions, and due to the tries from the

was the widest urban social movement in this context

residents of getting a voice in the process, a campaign

against governments’ enforcements, which also restrict

of criminalization was performed from the local au-

the private life. In this sense Sulukule Process has sig-

thorities. Not only a new criminal code was set in which

nificant meaning for social movement’s history in Is-

gecekondu construction was defined as a criminal act

tanbul. As a reaction against long going government’s

listed under ‘Crimes against the Environment’ and

policies and decisions, in May 2013 we were witnessed

‘Causing Construction Pollution’ punished by five years

of the Gezi Protest.

in prison (Kuyucu et al. 2010, p. 1484) but association

The demolition of Sulukule gecekondu intensified the

of gecekondu population with crime was another gov-

economic, social and cultural vulnerability of the origi-

ernmental action to support TOKI interventions (AGFE

nal population, as they were forced to relocate into Ta-

2009, p. 14).

soluk district, 40 kilometers away from the city (Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission

Sulukule Renewal Project Product

to the Historic Areas of Istanbul 2008, p. 81). Consecu-

All in all, the tragic results of this process were compre-

tively, due to the loss of income, based on an informal

hensible. After 3 years demolitions finished on Septem-

economy structure rooted in Sulukule, people relo-

ber 2009 and TOKİ constructions began on 2010. This

cated into TOKI’s social housing blocks are experienc-

new project was targeting higher income groups (see

ing a second wave of evictions, being ‘forced to leave

Figure 13). The project was cancelled from city council

the TOKI blocks because they could not afford to pay

in 2012, due to accepting this project was not appro-

the rent, building fees or other costs’ (AGFE 2009, p.

priate for common good, which also shows the prob-

21) nor adapt to the living conditions and most of the

lematic development pattern in Istanbul. Even though

evictees returned to areas near their old neighborhood

there were large scale and diverse solidarity and so-

(Çiftçioğlu 2009).


Case  Study:  Sulukule

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

19


Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case Study: santralistanbul

Case  Study:  santralistanbul

18 disparate public-private partnership aiming to redevelop the formerly industrial Golden Horn area. Among

During the 1980s, many sectors of the Turkish econo-

these projects was the conversion of the Silahtarağa

my were liberalized, opening the door to private and

Power Plant into a gallery named santralistanbul (see

foreign investment for the first time. (see Figure 6, p.

Figure 16). The project was planned as a big multi-

10-11) Laws liberalizing the real estate market and the

purpose campus to “eventually house university class-

encouragement of private investment in cultural devel-

rooms and departments, a Museum of Energy, a public

opment, set the stage for a series of projects forming

library, a park, multiple cinemas, a dance hall, open air

the Golden Horn Cultural Valley initiative, a group of

performance spaces, a multipurpose tent, restaurants,

Clearance of the banks

Foundation of Bilg University

Law for privatisation of universities

Rea Gol Vall

Idea to transform Silahtarağa into a cultural venue

Idea san Bilg

santralistanbul

Citizens

Professionals

Figure 14: santralistanbul. Actors

Institutions *Bilgi Foundation

Investors *Laureate Inc.

Government *National Government *Eyüp Municipality

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

Law No. 2634 on the Encouragement of Tourism

1997

20


Case  Study:  santralistanbul

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

21

a shopping street, and artists’ residences” (Smith 2007,

foundation in 1996. From its inception, the young uni-

online). The 118,000 sq m campus was thought to host

versity worked to position itself as an intellectually

1,000 residents and have a capacity of 1.5 million visi-

serious and high-class institution, attracting scholarly

tors per year (Smith 2007, online).

personnel from around the world and holding conferences on politically explosive issues such as the Kurdish

santralistanbul Process

question or the Armenian genocide (Unknown 2005;

Liberalization also made possible the creation of the

Alemdaroglu 2011). Bilgi also invested a great deal of

main player in santralistanbul’s development: Bilgi Uni-

capital into the establishment of campus building proj-

versity, a private university established as a non-profit

ects in Istanbul, including a development partnership

First collaboration between Laureate Inc. and Bilgi University

Municipality Professionals

National Government Second Phase

Citizens

Investors Institutions

Figure 15: santralistanbul. Process Diagram

b a l a n ce d

Initial Phase

2014

2013

2010

2009

2008

2006

2005

2011

Closing of santralistanbul art gallery

Opening santralistanbul

2004

2003

2002

2001

Erdoğan becomes Prime Minister

2000

1999

1998

a for ntralistanbul by gi Foundation

Silahtarağa transferred to Bilgi Foundation for 20 years

2007

alization of the lden Horn Cultural ley Project

Auction of Bilgi’s art collection

Laureate fully takes over Bilgi University

2012

Law No. 5225 on the Encouragement of the Cultural Investment and Initiatives

gi


22

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case  Study:  santralistanbul

Figure 16: Transformed power plant santralistanbul

to renovate a former power plant into the santralistan-

American for-profit education company Laureate, Inc.,

bul gallery (Alemdaroglu 2011). The idea for the gallery

a transaction which some observers close to the uni-

already floated since the 1980s, was eventually devel-

versity saw as a very disappointing trade-off of inde-

oped by Oğuz Özerden, the director of Bilgi Foundation

pendence for financial stability and control by outside

in cooperation with Erdoğan, who was the mayor of

investors (Fein, Redden 2013; Kimes, Smith 2014). After

Istanbul at that time. The project was realized, when

its takeover by Laureate, Inc., Bilgi University shifted its

Erdoğan was Prime Minister of Turkey and was opened

institutional focus from the humanities to vocational

in 2007 (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 527).

and engineering training. In 2012, the modern art gal-

Although it is difficult to find information on the exact

lery portion of the santralistanbul campus was shut

sequence of events, an unpublished paper indicates

down to make room for more classrooms – and in 2013,

that Bilgi University’s costly investment in santralis-

the university began to sell off its collection of modern

tanbul contributed to a financial bottleneck which, by

Turkish art, estimated at a value of $7 million (Kimes,

2006, seriously threatened the viability of the institu-

Smith 2014).

tion (Alemdaroglu 2011). Bilgi was able to save itself from financial overextension by partnering with the


Case  Study:  santralistanbul

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

23

santralistanbul Product:

of a lack of local economic embeddedness and the

Evaluating the santralistanbul project through the lens

long-term viability of the institution itself. From a lo-

of sustainability, the findings are strikingly disappoint-

cal perspective, only few local shops and the taxi com-

ing on two different levels. On a local level, the project

panies profit from the increased tourist traffic and the

never truly engaged with the local context of the Eyüp

Bilgi students’ daily purchases. More globally, within its

Municipality; at best, it was a foreign body inserted into

lifetime, santralistanbul did manage to attract tourists,

Eyüp, lacking in both truly positive or negative conse-

bring in well-known foreign artists and function as a

quences for its neighbors. As a cultural flagship proj-

platform for international debates. However, the insti-

ect, primarily intended to shape Istanbul’s global im-

tution’s recent implosion calls many common assump-

age and developed at great cost to both the public and

tions of contemporary urban design into question. In

private institutions involved, the gallery santralistanbul

pursuit of the fabled “Bilbao effect” of cultural develop-

was only briefly able to fulfill its lofty ambitions before

ment – even taking the Tate Modern as its blueprint –

quietly closing its doors in a process that is truly shock-

Bilgi University overextended itself to the point of near

ing in its lack of transparency.

destruction and lost its institutional independence to a

Generally, it seems that ecological issues have not

for-profit company which increasingly stands accused

been specifically considered in the scope of the proj-

of being more interested in its global bottom line than

ect. Since santralistanbul is embedded in the Golden

the success of its students, the quality of its educational

Horn Cultural Valley Project, it appears that certain

offerings, or the health of individual institutions under

landscape-architectural projects were especially de-

its umbrella. The 2013 sale of santralistanbul’s modern

signed to deal with the ecological improvement of the

art collection provides a meaningful indication of a lack

Golden Horn Area. Also the clearance of the banks of

of sustainable economic thinking on Laureate’s part.

the Golden Horn in the 1980s was ecologically argued

Perhaps more damningly, as Bilgi sells off its art collec-

with the poor water quality of the strait. With the relo-

tion, the university happens to be on a course of rapid

cation of industries and the razing of the squatter hous-

growth, a strategy the university’s chairman explains

ing, the aim of upgrading the water quality was already

thusly: “If you want to go to Wall Street one day, you

achieved (Baycan-Levent 2003, p. 15). This feeds the

need to have a good story” (Kimes 2014, p. 14).

assumption that with the improvement of water qual-

The political sustainability of santralistanbul is a simi-

ity and the landscape-architectural projects along the

larly fraught topic. The gallery never had a strong con-

waterfront, there was no further consideration of eco-

nection to the adjacent neighbourhoods of Eyüp, for

logical issues in the realization of projects like santral-

highly politicized reasons. Since santralistanbul was

istanbul.

developed by the Turkish central government, the

Economically, santralistanbul serves as a particularly

project did not take the opinions of the religious-con-

disastrous example of the ways a cultural flagship proj-

servative population and municipality in Eyüp into ac-

ect of international relevance can fail, both in terms

count (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 528). Santralistanbul was


24

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Case  Study:  santralistanbul

implemented like a foreign body into the existing fabric

to the filing of complaints against loud music and alco-

and eventually made the municipality work against it,

holic beverages sold at a festival held at santralistanbul

by not including the project into their strategic plans

(Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 528). The program of the cam-

and trying to prevent any synergies between the neigh-

pus is in direct contrast to the religious-conservative

bourhoods and the campus. Furthermore, a project

orientation of the local population, which remains a

initiated by the Bilgi Foundation in collaboration with

cause of conflict between Bilgi University students and

local actors to develop a cultural-educative program

Eyüp locals. Still, the implementation of the campus can

for an adjacent avenue to bring residents and the cam-

be seen as a way of preserving cultural heritage, since

pus into dialogue, did not succeed since the plan was

the old Silahtaraga power plant is one of the last relics

not supported by the Eyüp municipality (Bakbaşa, Töre

of the Ottoman industrial past of the Golden Horn. Un-

2013, p. 528).

fortunately, it is unclear whether the power plant is still

The political dimension of the project becomes clear by

open to the public for visits since being converted into

looking at the opening ceremony, which was delayed

a classroom space for Bilgi University.

for six months so that Prime Minister Erdogan could attend and it was held a few days before a meeting with the EU to discuss Turkey’s cohesion. With that santralistanbul becomes an instrument for the national government’s purposes, by ignoring local actors (Bakbaşa, Töre 2013, p. 527). Culturally, santralistanbul had a brief successful run in hosting large events and high quality exhibitions which were accompanied by critical scientific research (Smith 2007). It attracted people from all over the world and – in its day – got quite a bit of attention on the international art scene. However, the sale of its modern art collection has caused a small scandal, not least because Turkey’s Ministry of Art and Culture approved the liquidation of the contemporary art collection on the basis of a valuation scheme which considers older art to be the most valuable – a questionable set of decisions that suggests a lack of support for today’s Turkish artists (Kortun 2013). In addition, the local population was never involved in the santralistanbul events and processes on the campus, which in the past lead


Conclusion

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

25

Conclusion

the living conditions of the dwellers. It was exclusively

After examining the context of urban development in

used by the local authorities as a way ‘to increase the

Istanbul and taking a closer look at two case studies,

value of the land for private speculation by removing

the report will conclude by placing the case studies into

the existing community and historic urban form’ (Ingin

the context of contemporary urban design, and reex-

et al. 2011, p. 129), relocating the inhabitants of those

amining the question of the possibilities for quality ur-

areas to public housing blocks in the periphery (AGFE

ban design in a contested social and political environ-

2009, p. 21), and therefore speculate with public land,

ment.

resulting in what can be considered as a “state-led” gentrification.

Sulukule

Sulukule had a unique and unusual structure in ur-

The evictions and demolition process in the informal

ban life with all this dimensions, such as informal rent

neighborhood of Sulukule were not only a result of a

agreements, common courtyard systems, which also

real-state development motivation under the scope of

has a reflection of social-cultural dimension. Instead of

neoliberal policies, but in terms of urban design, it was

enforcing top-down planning, urban interventions sup-

also a consequence of a modernist-inspired approach.

posed to occur in terms of democracy and participation

Following the modernist renewal policy that has been

and include local needs. It is required that the preserva-

used in nearly all similar scenarios through the world

tion must be considered as a preservation of integrity

(Mukhija 2011, p. 576), in Sulukule, a strategy of infor-

of social, cultural and physical organism, then it is possi-

mal settlement clearance and relocation of their inhab-

ble to mention about a sustainable and healthy preser-

itants into newly created public housing projects was

vation (Ingın 2008a, p. 18). The ethnic cultural structure

implemented by a top-down program restricted to the

and solidarity culture in Sulukule is also important part

transformation of the physical space. The local authori-

of the Historical Peninsula’s cultural mosaic, for that

ties – allowed by the progressively empowerment of

reason preservation of the cultural sustainability has

governmental actors like TOKI – put in force an urban

a significant meaning in a wider context (Architectural

renewal project that lacked of considering the cultural,

and Planning Report Group 2008, p. 7).

social, economic and environmental characteristics of

Under this unbalanced situation in favor of the inter-

the neighborhood (Balaban 2008, p. 252) and which

est of the local government, the strong confrontation

was conducted under a centralistic and authoritarian

between neoliberal power forces (see Figure 17) and

model with neither participation nor option for dia-

the self-made daily city of Istanbul’s inhabitants de-

logue for the inhabitants; leaving the process only as a

rived from the logical response from an urban design

political intervention based on market conditions (Er-

perspective. Pursued by the local citizens, professionals

bas et al. 2013, p. 590).

and activists in the streets and in court, right-to-the-

Consequently, as other renewal projects in Istanbul,

city movements started working with the minorities

Sulukule Renewal Project was never meant to improve

and building interconnections between the different


26

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

Conclusion

Municipality Professionals

Professionals Second Phase

Citizens

Second Phase

Citizens Initial Phase

Institutions

National Government

Government

Investors

b a l a n ce d

Investors Institutions

b a l a n ce d

Initial Phase

Figure 17: Urban Design Process Sulukule

Figure 18: Urban Design Process santralistanbul

groups to find alternatives for the original Sulukule

specific political context of Turkey and Istanbul are also

dwellers even after the demolitions and their displace-

key for a full understanding. The project required a high

ment took place (Uysal 2011, p. 19).

level of support from the central government in order to get the clout and funding needed for its implemen-

santralistanbul

tation. In the process, it became the subject of power

The santralistanbul project was positioned squarely

struggles between central and municipal authorities,

within the neoliberal paradigm of urban design initi-

which prevented the project from having any notice-

ated as a public-private partnership; indeed, it could

able effect upon its local context and undermined

not have been implemented without the liberalization

santralistanbul’s attempts to follow in the footsteps of

of the 1980s, which promoted both the establishment

the museums that inspired it. Now that it is left as a

of Bilgi University as an institution, as well as private

complex of very stylish classrooms for private univer-

investment in cultural and tourist projects. In terms of

sity students, it is to be expected that santralistanbul is

the arguments used to promote the project, its design

even more an island of development than before.

aesthetics and the uses encouraged within the space,

For both Bilgi University and Erdogan’s Istanbul, the ini-

santralistanbul was explicitly patterned upon much-

tial conception of santralistanbul had all the hallmarks

praised cultural development projects such as the

of a mutually beneficial project sure to produce a high

Tate Modern in London or the Guggenheim Museum

level of return on investment. Instead, a project that

in Bilbao. Here, santralistanbul can be understood as

seemed too big to fail, ended in a buyout by foreign

Istanbul’s attempt to complete a very specific type

interests and a selloff of important assets. As similar

of assignment for early-21st century urban design: A

pitches for cultural development projects as trade-

glossy museum with rugged industrial bones, perched

marks of “creative city” development are made world-

upon a long-neglected waterfront and sold as a driver

wide, santralistanbul serves as a warning to contempo-

of everything from renewed tourism, to neighborhood

rary urban planners and designers, to develop a critical

regeneration, to the competitiveness of the entire city

understanding of current and future trends that can

in a global context.

lead to cookie-cutter urban design solutions of ques-

In analyzing the fate of santralistanbul, however, the

tionable worth.


Conclusion

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

27

Synthesis / Conclusion

In terms of the urban design products of Sulukule and

Sulukule and santralistanbul may be only 4 kilometers

santralistanbul, both the new housing for Sulukule’s

away from each other, but they at first seem to belong

residents and the museum santralistanbul are similar

to entirely different worlds of urban design. While the

in their status as design projects which clearly emerge

residents of Sulukule fought to preserve their social

from a type. While replacement housing for Sulukule

worlds and basic standards of living, private founda-

follows a modernist scheme of large-scale housing de-

tions and public funding were pumped into santralis-

velopment, santralistanbul took as its inspiration cul-

tanbul to the tune of over $40 million. However, the

tural institutions embedded within a larger scheme of

two case studies do have key points of comparison in

urban redevelopment, as seen in post-industrial water-

the processes that created them, as well as the end

front areas worldwide. While urban designers world-

products of these processes.

wide can certainly use best-practice projects as blue-

Considering the legality and fairness of each process,

prints for future development, both case studies point

it is clear from the timelines that both processes were

to serious problems with this sort of planning within

made possible by shifts in policy that legalized modes of

the context of sustainability. Residential resettlement

urban design that would not have been possible before

with no consideration for the value of local communi-

the 1980s. Interestingly, both processes included mo-

ty ties, informal economies, or minority cultures, can

ments of protest based upon residents and other ac-

hardly be considered to be in the realm of sustainable

tors (such as university students at Bilgi) whose idea of

urban development. And though the case of santralis-

fairness clashed with the processes – land grabs, reset-

tanbul hardly touches upon such existential questions

tlement, evictions, massive private investment in cul-

of individual and community survival, its six-year rise

tural affairs, the financial takeover of Bilgi – that were

and fall speaks to a troubling gold-rush mentality in a

legal. Basic ideas such as the meaning of land owner-

few of Istanbul’s key sectors: urban design, education

ship or the concept of the university as an institution,

and culture.

were challenged by the overriding power of the state to

Within the case studies, profound difficulties in design

shape laws, events, institutions, and in the end, urban

practice within contested urban spaces are clearly vis-

form itself. Unbalanced relationships between stake-

ible. The basic urban design tasks of creating a balanced

holders, contesting definitions of fairness and legality,

design process and ensuring a sustainable product, re-

and non-inclusive design processes, all serve as a major

quire an environment including a high level of consen-

barrier to designing projects which meet any definition

sus as to the meaning of these terms. As Turkish citizens

of social, political or cultural sustainability; and it is rare

find themselves embroiled in controversies over the

that ecological considerations can be found within pro-

basic meaning of democracy and citizenship, the pro-

cesses that are so marked by power politics, that even

cesses and products of urban design have little chance

the opening of a project such as santralistanbul is timed

to reflect any substantive societal consensus.

to fit in with political considerations.


28

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

References

References Advisory Group on Forced Evictions: AGFE (Ed.) (2009): Mission to Istanbul, Republic of Turkey. June 8 to 11 2009. With assistance of Arif Hasan, Yves Cabannes. Available online at http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/ docs/10008_1_593995.pdf, accessed on 16/03/2014 Altınok, Emre; Cengiz, Hüseyin (Eds.) (2008): The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Spatial Fragmentation and Social Segregation in Istanbul. 44th ISOCARP Congress. Alemdaroglu, Ayça (2011): Selling Futures Across Borders. The Global Trade of Higher Education and ‘For-profitization’ in Turkey. Stanford University (Anthropology Brown Bag Series), checked on 1/3/2014. Architectural and Planning Report Group (2008): The Situation, Role and Identity of Sulukule within The Historical Peninsula. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Bakbaşa, Ceyda; Töre, Evrim (2013): Private Investment in Urban Regeneration Process: The Case of Golden Horn. In: World Applied Sciences Journal 22 (4), 2013, p. 523-531. Available online at http://www.idosi.org/wasj/ wasj22%284%2913/11.pdf, checked on 05/01/2014 Balaban, Osman (2008): Capital accumulation, the state and
the production of built environment: The case of Turkey. Ph.D. Middle East Technical University Baycan-Levent, Tüzin (2003): Globalization and Development Strategies for Istanbul, 39th ISoCaRP Congress 2003. Available online at http://www.isocarp.net/data/case_studies/359.pdf, checked on 11/12/2013 Candan, Ayfer Bartu and Kolluoğlu, Biray (2008): Emerging spaces of neoliberalism: A gated town and a public housing project in Istanbul. In: New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, 2008, p. 5-46 Çelik, Özlem (2008): The pattern and process of urban social exclusion in Istanbul. M.Sc. Middle East Technical University. Çetingöz, Metin (2008): Chronology of the Sulukule Urban Renewal Project Process. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul, pp. 26–34. Çiftçioğlu, Kerem (2009): Sulukule; a multi-Stakeholder Participatory Planning Process. In Tansel Korkmaz, Eda Yücesoy Ünlü, Yaşar Adanalı, Can Altay, Philipp Misselwitz (Eds.): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. Enlil, Zeynep Merey (2011): The Neoliberal Agenda and the Changing Urban Form of Istanbul. In International Planning Studies 16 (1), pp. 5–25. Erbas, A. Erdem and Erbil Tansel (2013): Neoliberal challenges and practices of urban regeneration projects in Istanbul. In: Real Corp 2013, Rome, 05/2013, p. 587-595 Fein, Paul; Redden, Elizabeth (2013): Going global. Laureate’s growing global network of institutions. In Inside Higher Ed, 10/1/2013. Available online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/10/laureates-growingglobal-network-institutions, checked on 5/1/2014. Ingın, A.Kıyak (2008a): An Evaluation over Civilian Architectural Constructions and Protection at Sulukule Scale. In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Ingın, A.Kıyak (2008b): Can Sulukule Platform be a model for the conservation processes in Istanbul? In : Report on the JointWorld Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul. Ingin, Aslı Kıyak and Islam, Tolga (2011): The Reordering of a Romany Neighbourhood, p. 125-130


References

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

29

James, Paul (2013): Assessing the Sustainability of Cities. Urban Profile Process, 3/3/2013. Available online at http://citiesprogramme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Urban-Profile-Process-V3.3-Tool-and-Guiding-Paperweb.pdf, checked on 3/7/2014. Karaman, Ozan; Islam, Tolga (2012): On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. In Cities 29 (4), pp. 234–243. Keyder, Çağlar (2005): Globalization a nd Social Exclusion in Istanbul. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29, pp. 124–134. Kimes, Mina; Smith, Michael (2014): Laureate, a for-profit education firm, finds international success (with a Clinton’s help). In The Washington Post, 1/18/2014. Available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ laureate-a-for-profit-education-firm-finds-international-success-with-a-clintons-help/2014/01/16/13f8adde-7ca611e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html, checked on 3/1/2014. Köktürk, Erdal; Köktürk, Erol; Özlüdemir, Tevfik M.; Çelik, R. Nurhan: An Investigation on to ‘Squat and The Exemption of Unauthorized Buildings -Gecekondu’ in Turkey. Korkmaz, Tansel; Yücesoy Ünlü, Eda; Adanalı, Yaşar; Altay, Can; Misselwitz, Philipp (Eds.) (2009): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. Kuyucu, Tuna; Ünsal, Özlem (2010): ‘Urban Transformation’ as State-led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul. In: Urban Studies. 6/2010, pp. 1479-1499 Letsch, Constanze (2012): Crossing the Bosphorus: a bridge too far. In: Tarlabaşı Istanbul 13/01/2012 Available online at http://www.tarlabasiistanbul.com/2012/01/crossing-the-bosphorus-a-bridge-too-far/, checked on 17/12/2013 Manidapour, Ali (1997): Ambiguities of Urban Design. In Town Planning Review 68(3), pp. 363–383. Mukhija, Vinit, (2011). Urban Design for a planet of informal cities. In Banerjee, T., Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (eds.), Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, London (pp: 574-584) Özdemir, Dilek (2010): The role of the public sector in the provision of housing supply in turkey, 1950-2009. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 11/2010, p. 1099-1117 Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul (2008). Available online at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356/documents/, checked on 12/10/2013. Smith, Sarah-Neel (2007): Managing Utopia – Can Santralistanbul realize ist grand ambitions?. In: Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations (ed.): Nafas. Art Magazine, 09/2007. Available online at http://universes-in-universe.org/ eng/nafas/articles/2007/santralistanbul, checked on 07/01/2014 Unknown (2005): Turkish court’s ban of Armenian conference is circumvented. In New York Times, 9/24/2005. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/world/africa/23iht-turkey.html?_r=0, checked on 3/3/2014. Urban Age (Ed.) (2009): Istanbul City of Intersections. London School of Economics. Uysal, Ü. Evrim (2012): An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: The case of Sulukule, Istanbul. In Cities 29 (1), pp. 12–22. Yalçıntan, Murat C.; Erbaş, Adem E. (2003): Impacts of “Gecekondu” on the Electoral Geography of Istanbul. In International Labor and Working-Class History 64, pp. 91–111.


30

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

List  of  Figures

List of Figures Figure 1:........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Balanced Urban Design Figure 2:........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Evaluaiting Sustainability (Created by the authors via James, Paul (2013): Assessing the Sustainability of Cities. Urban Profile Process, 3/3/2013. Available online at http://citiesprogramme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Urban-Profile-ProcessV3.3-Tool-and-Guiding-Paper-web.pdf, checked on 3/7/2014) Figure 3:........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Urban footprint between 1950-2010 (Created by the authors via the poster from ‘İstanbul 1910-2010 kent, yapılı çevre ve mimarlık kültürü’ exhibition) Figure 4:........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Gecekondu formation process (Created by the authors with the data derived from AGFE, 2009; and Keleş and Payne, 1984, cited in Çelik, 2008 ) Figure 5:........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Number of Gecekondus in relation to Istanbul population according to different sources (Created by the authors with the data derived from AGFE, 2009; and Keleş and Payne, 1984, cited in Çelik, 2008) Figure 6:................................................................................................................................................................. 10-11 Evolution of the legal framework in Turkey. Legislation empowering TOKI (Data derived from AGFE, 2009; Erbas et al. 2013) Figure 7:................................................................................................................................................................. 12-13 The Northern Marmara Highway Project (Created by the authors via Korkmaz, Tansel; Yücesoy Ünlü, Eda; Adanalı, Yaşar; Altay, Can; Misselwitz, Philipp (Eds.) (2009): Istanbul Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion: Diwan. p. 3-4) Figure 8:...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sulukule. Actors Figure 9:...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Sulukule. Process Diagram Figure 10:.................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Street view before demolitions had started (Karaman, Ozan; Islam, Tolga (2012): On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. In Cities 29 (4), p. 240) Figure 11:.................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Sulukule Platform. Actors Figure 12:.................................................................................................................................................................... 18 View during the demolitions (http://i.sabah.com.tr/sb/galeri/yasam/2396/58470_d.jpg, accesed: 08.02.2104) Figure 13:.................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Present Apperance of Sulukule with TOKİ buildings (source: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/29759110, accesed: 15.02.2104)


List  of  Figures

Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul

31

Figure 14:.................................................................................................................................................................... 20 santralistanbul. Actors Figure 15:.................................................................................................................................................................... 21 santralistanbul. Process Diagram Figure 16:.................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Transformed power plant santralistanbul (http://www.emrearolat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/santral.jpg, accessed: 25.03.2014) Figure 17:.................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Urban Design Process Sulukul Figure 18:.................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Urban Design Process santralistanbul


Exploring  the  Ambiguities  of  Urban  Design  in  Contemporary  Istanbul Berlin. 31.03.2014

Houd report istanbul  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you