Gece-can-do

Istanbul is on the move; and the movement is towards new horizons, probably a search for its new identity on the world map. The movement is guided by a vision that is an off-shoot from a vision of Turkey itself. What Istanbul is experiencing is probably the movement at scale. Searching for new identities has probably resulted in discarding and shunning the old; an identity that is visible in the ‘mahalle’ culture – a beautifully complex and yet simple manifestation of the ‘social order’ that is not rigid or binding, but is flexible and dynamic. The movement is from Orhan’s description of the ‘mohalle’ that encompassed almost all aspects of the society, to an ‘economic’ order of the gated communities – a concentration of money or power or intellect or religion or ethnicity, a mono-block. However, completely subscribing to a critical rhetoric of the movement or romanticising the ‘mahalle’ might be a one-sided approach, bordering on being ignorant of a much larger picture.

Western societies went through similar phases of development pains which many of the developing nations are experiencing today. Most of the world has embraced the neo-liberal ideologies of capitalism and free-markets and have been welcomed in international forums being able to participate in the world economy. The kind of social changes brought about with those ideologies are almost a given fact. Changes in income levels, class, strata, way of life, standard of living etc. will definitely demand a change in the way a city negotiates its space. It is the right of the country, the cities and the people to reap benefits from those changes that have brought latent energies to life and that recognize them at a global scale. And scale definitely becomes the issue where the criticism of the new versus the old falls apart. The scale at which the old operated and impacted is much smaller than the scale at which the neo-liberal economic order operates and impacts. From entering daily lives of the inhabitants to connecting them to the whole world, the scale of the new is all encompassing. This is reason enough for it to demand and create spaces, where its order, creates the rules of participation and exclusion that are embodied in gentrification and Disneyfication.

In Istanbul, we experienced one pole of this process, where the new world order has been embraced whole heartedly for its benefits and far-reaching impacts for the nation, its cities and its people. However, its rhetoric has been stretched into the ‘perceived space’ to develop an image which places the Gecekondus in direct conflict with its goals. How can one merge the two images, the two realities? Probably the question itself is wrong. Are the realities actually that apart? Or is the Gecekondu another manifestation of the same world order but in a much earlier timeline? There are definitely more possibilities in exploring a new line of thought.

Hagia Sophia

Shock and Awe

Istanbul is on the move; rather the attempt is to crash into the ‘first world’ or ‘global north’ subscribing to conventional definitions. The city and its population have been on the move since centuries, due to both internal and external stimuli. The violent birth of a republic as the empire took its last sigh probably has its bearing in contemporary times reflected in the centrality of ‘command and control’ structures. Istanbul migrated from being an empire to being a republic, and now, within a span of half a century, it wants to migrate into the ‘first world’, be part of the elite of the European Union. What has this movement, this migration meant for the people and for Istanbul itself? From being an important city in the beginning of the 20th century, it went off the world map for a few decades that resulted in a flight of population from the city. The emergence of Istanbul just a few decades later meant that it saw sweeping changes in fortunes and conflicting realities for populations that were not geared to absorb those changes. It didn’t even take a generation for these changes to take place and quotes like “this place is unrecognizable after every 2 years” embody the speed at which transformations are taking place.

This ‘violence of transformation’ is probably manifested in a ‘shock and awe’ treatment of the development process. The response to this shock is almost equally violent in nature and embodies all the elements of a lopsided vision of the city. The two decade old consciousness of being part of the ‘global north’ is probably envisioned as a mono-functional image of Manhattan or Hong Kong. Whether it is a response or an attempt to give direction to the inevitable is debatable, however, from the standpoint of the city, it is somewhere between the two as it has created a landscape of tension at various levels and strata, in social and physical realms. The crashing of two realities in the same space, whether contrasting or not, but definitely conflicting, has a tremendous bearing on the communities whose resilience is broken in front of draconian laws and organizations or in front of raw power of capital. A few pockets of resistance are withstanding enormous pressures, but without dwelling into a constructive rhetoric. Their response to the ‘shock and awe’ treatment is reactionary. The rhetoric against government’s strategic standpoint on land tenure (guided by real estate considerations) is again land tenure. It’s rebellious, leading to a Sulukule or Gulsuyu/ Gulensu. Developmental objectives of the society as a whole or in parts are ignored by both the sides.

The EU’s ‘acquis communautaire’ lists aspects such as fundamental rights, social security and women’s rights, which are highly questionable within the current state of development in Istanbul. Our experience in Istanbul demonstrated the lack of focus in such areas and overt focus on economy and associated imagery in cities such as Istanbul. Numerous questions arise from the past and current state of housing in the city, the state’s answer to housing and its implicit agenda of rationalizing use of space as per its ‘global’ vision. And more importantly, what should be people’s stand and rhetoric to such an agenda.

Field trip rumbling 1

I will try to do this backwards, if at all. This is the part where I should phrase the reflective nature of the following words, ponder on the inevitability of time’s lessons and, consequently provide an insightful calibration of my understanding of Istanbul and where did I fit in it. I’m not fully convinced this is possible, or even necessary.
Right now, my impressions and memories seem to hinge on the most recent hours, the final ones, where all was presentation, production of slides, quick analysis and strategy. And looking back, during those hours there wasn’t that much Istanbul, to be honest; it was some sort of faded backdrop to that overpowering beast that is academic rigour. When transformation became the key word of the process, you knew it had some limitations…I mean, transformation could be anything, anywhere, its meaning determined a lot by convenience and chance. So for me, transformation was best represented in those strange hours where we transitioned from trying to honestly understand that absurdly fascinating city, to, once again, resorting back to our old student ways: evaluating proper language, designing slide diagramming, projecting answers to the limited information we had in our hands.
This division remains my biggest personal struggle. How do we shift from being perceptive to a situation to producing information so solemnly encased in academic parameters? There is something in that implicit calculation that sterilizes the bulk of our impressions into yet another structured analysis fit for the ensuing discussions but somewhat lacking of the richness of improvisation. Thank goodness for this group, which remains convinced that these presentations deserve the chance of being a bit illogical.
I think our presentation was very good, still with a lot to be done, and yet for different reasons its appreciation got entangled in another discussion. This, as we are told, is what reality is about, stakeholders making a case for themselves, actors appropriating arguments, feedback being biased and calculated. And then the words, the faces, the arguments, seem to blur from the context, and the discussion becomes a dialogue or dispute that could be anywhere (by changing those keywords that give the context), that we have already heard, that we should expect in the future. For all I know, this was exactly as expected, and for some reason, this was a bit of a letdown. The presentation was what I thought it was going to be, and the "feedback" afterwards too. Nothing unplanned, everything under control. Even that final discussion fit into the countless predictions of what to expect at such gatherings. And just like that we had the universal goodbye, thanks-to-all and be-in-touch. Fieldtrip over.

Apparently this blog is total C.R.A.P. to upload files. So we are uploading lit reviews on the official BUDD blog (ning).

Theme: Land & Built Environment

Bibliography Theme: 3- Land and the built environment

Author: Ozan Karaman, 2008

Title: Urban Pulse-(Re)Making Space For Globalization in Istanbul

ABSTRACT

The author reflects on the ‘urban transformation campaign’ launched by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) to upgrade Istanbul to “world city” status. The effects of the two main aspects of the campaign - involving ‘prestige’ mega projects and redevelopment of informal housing areas - put the livelihoods of poor residents at stake.

SUMMARY / MAIN IDEAS

IMM (actor) – currently controlled by the Islamic Justice and Development Party (JDP), is a promoter and partner of large scale prestigious projects (hotels, office bldgs, waterfront devel). Their priority is to market Istanbul for foreign investment. They have been criticized for violating planning decisions and bldg regulations, without any consideration of their connection to the wider urban context and existing infrastructure.

Slums/informal settlements viewed as eyesores – hence, slum clearance on lucrative devel sites and gentrification enforced in inner city.

Chamber of Architects (actor) (spearhead opposition bloc) challenge the IMM for its speculative approach to urban transformation (UT), that in most cases privatizes land.

Waterfront Developments seen as most valuable assets. They fundamentally lack transparency and direct participation of citizens, community groups and NGOs in decision making.

Urban Transformation Bill, used to regulate large scale urban renewal and regeneration projects still pending. It would authorize the admin (the IMM and local municipalities) to establish UT zones, expropriate private property, execute projects, engage in P-P-Ps and form private firms or real estate partnerships with private firms.

Participation is not mentioned and only refers to owners/dwellers could be entitled to housing in the projects on the condition they agree to pay a scheme that could extend over 20 years.

IMM targeted areas:

1) Gecekondu settlements established before 1985 (where legal status was granted through “gecekondu amnestities” enacted between 1983 and 1987). They date back to the 1950s with first wave of rural migrants. Settlements made up of makeshift single storey dwellings. Over time, dwellings upgraded and expanded by owners w/ no government interference or regulation and w/out adherence to bldg and zoning codes.Today: crowded, multi-story and pose major earthquake risks. The once tight-knit social networks among residents is now gone.

2) Gecekondu established after 1985. Mostly multi-story apartment bldgs, containing a max number of units for sale or rent. Located more peripherally than the first group and therefore have maintained affordable rents. These areas have received the majority of the forced Kurdish migration since the early 1990s. High levels of socio-economic and ethnic heterogeneity. Social cohesion and community solidarity is minimal and a major cause of tension. These types of gecekondus are the primary IMM targets. (see Demolition case study of Ayazma-Tepeustu in 2007)

3) Slums in the historic city centre. Typically areas of extreme poverty. Conditions vary from completely rundown (Sulukule) to neglected Ottoman vernacular architecture (Tarlabasi) but share extremely crowded living conditions.

Contesting redevelopment – primarily from filing law suits against IMM and local munip., devising their own plans, individual or collective resistance. Chamber of Architects and the chamber of Urban Planners assist with legal procedures, NGOs with alternative plans (Sulukule case outlined).

AUTHOR’S CONCLUSION / POSITION

The urban transformation program is non-participatory and top-down, there is no real attempt to address affordable housing needs of the city and the program runs the risk of deepening the already highly segregated urban environment.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS / KEYWORDS

Keywords: global city, urban transformation, gecekondus

Galata transformation

well, actually guys... Istanbul rocks.

Resurrection of the blog

The former BUDD thai blog, death and sadly never used (premonition?) resurrects from the ashes (...) in form of the brand new Istanbul BUDD blog! When the East meets the West, the BUDD is already prepared to leave its sign, again.