THE IMPACT OF URBAN RENEWAL AND GENTRIFICATION ON URBAN FABRIC: THREE CASES IN TURKEY
C. NIL UZUN
Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University Ankara, 1nönü Bulvarı, 06531 Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: July 2001, revised July 2002
ABSTRACTSince the 1980s, the urban restructuration process has had important effects on cities. One ofthese is the transformation of urban residential space, which includes processes such as urbanrenewal and gentrification. The aim of this paper is to briefly examine three urban residentialtransformation processes in Turkey. Two of these are examples of gentrification of two differentneighbourhoods in Istanbul, and the third is an example of urban renewal in a neighbourhoodin Ankara. The transformation processes in each of these examples have different structures.Related to the characteristics of the processes, their impacts on the cities are different. Thesedifferences are evaluated with respect to their impact on the social and spatial structure in theseneighbourhoods.
It may be asserted that the 1980s marked thestarting point of a significant urban restructur-ation. Together with a shift away from a Fordistmode of production to a post-Fordist produc-tion system, the occupational structures beganchanging. The significance of the service econ-omy increased, leading to an increase in theimportance of the professional, administrativeand technical occupations. The changes in theeconomy created social polarisation in termsof income and occupational status. The masssociety was converting to a fragmented society. Anew middle class emerged: professional people,mostly single, or young couples without chil-dren. Their residential choice reflected a dif-ferent lifestyle, which included a preferencefor historic inner-city neighbourhoods thatwere both close to work and to cultural amenitiesnext to the new financial and administrative
centres. In part, the changing lifestyles andcultural preferences were expressed throughold houses, especially in the inner-city, beingbought and refurbished. Changes taking placein communication technology and the creationof an information society began changingthe spatial structure of cities as well. While thefinancial and administrative functions and theproducer services moved to the city centre, indu-strial production decentralised. (Beauregard1986; Griffith 1995; Ley 1996; Smith 1986).
Parallel to the general changes summarisedabove and in close association with social polar-isation, residential transformation took placein the abandoned and dilapidated old inner-city neighbourhoods through urban renewaland upgrading processes. The residential trans-formation included both reinvasion and resi-dential revitalisation. Through reinvasion, upperstatus groups displaced lower status groups ininner-city areas leading to urban renewal and
rehabilitation. In residential revitalisation, on theother hand, two processes were witnessed: incum-bent upgrading and gentrification. In incumbentupgrading, residents of a neighbourhoodexpend their money and effort in refurbish-ing their homes. Through gentrification, mid-dle, and upper middle-income groups move intoa neighbourhood, renovate homes and displacethe indigeneous residents. Gentrification alsoinvolves the expression of socio-cultural prefer-ences in living space, in addition to physicalchange (Holcomb & Beauregard 1981).
This paper concentrates on three cases ofphysical and socio-cultural residential transfor-mation achieved through different processesin two different cities, Istanbul and Ankara. Theaim is to discuss these different approachesand evaluate their impact on the resulting socio-economic and physical profile in each area.The transformation process in the cases chosenfrom Istanbul, namely Cihangir and Kuzguncuk,conform more to the terms of the general
definition of gentrification made by Smith(1979) and Ley (1996) respectively. They arealso similar to other cases of gentrification inthe Western context (Table 1). Both areas arelocated close to the inner-city centres. Therehas been a change in both the physical environ-ment and the population composition of thetwo areas, as they have been partially invadedby higher income and distinct cultural groups.These two neighbourhoods have been chosenfor study as they are well known as sites ofgentrification.
In the third case, Dikmen, Ankara, the residen-tial transformation was realised through govern-ment intervention with an urban renewalproject. The aim of the Dikmen Valley Project(DVP) was urban renewal in a squatter settle-ment and was to keep the original populationin its place. The DVP, located in a prominentvalley in the city, is the largest renewal projectimplemented so far in Ankara, and thus, hasbeen chosen for this study.
Table 1. Characteristics of the gentrification process in several countries.
Characteristics of the gentrification process
Country
En
gland
USA
Can
ada
Australia
Th
e Neth
erlands
Mexico
South A
frica
Hun
gary
Finlan
d
France
Spain
LocationInner-city close to centre ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Historic centre ✓ ✓
This paper is in four parts. Explanations ofgentrification and urban renewal processesare given in the first part. This is followed bya description of the research methods used inthe case studies. The results for each case studyare then presented. The concluding section pro-vides a general evaluation of the three cases.
URBAN RENEWAL AND GENTRIFICATION
Along with the ongoing residential transforma-tion processes, urban renewal has been an impor-tant issue in the transformation of urban areas.Until the 1960s, urban renewal was interpretedas redevelopment involving the removal ofthe existing fabric and a change in the gen-eral layout of an area by the rearrangementof buildings and roads. Between the 1960s and1970s, it was based on rehabilitation and reno-vation in the advanced capitalist countries, andupgrading and self-help in the squatter areas ofdeveloping countries.
Starting in the 1980s, urban renewal wasevaluated within the context of globalisationand had new dimensions as regeneration andgentrification. As the cities expanded outwards,the inner-city areas became dilapidated andwere associated with social, economic and phys-ical problems, such as crime, delinquency andracial conflict. Urban renewal was seen as aresponse to these problems. Put more simply,it was seen as a physical change, or a changein the use or intensity of the use of land andbuildings where the emphasis moved to achieveinner-city gentrification and the conservationof the historical fabric of the environment(Fainstein 1995; Lichfield 1988; Özkan 1998).
On the other hand, the dynamics behind thegentrification process and its variations, accord-ing to where gentrification occurs, have beenexplained in several studies since the 1970s(Badcock 1995; Beauregard 1990; Hamnett1991; Lees 1996; Ley 1996; Palen & London1984; Rose 1984; Smith 1996; Smith & Williams1986; Van Weesep & Musterd 1991; Zukin1987). In general, the aim of these studies hasbeen to explain the process of the upgradingtaking place next to the city centres, and howthis trend might spread to the surroundingareas. Gentrification includes a change in thephysical structure, but the process has broaderimpacts. The original inhabitants of the inner
areas are liable to be displaced unwillingly.Little thought is given to where they wouldmove afterwards. Most of the time they have tomove to poorer residential areas. While theirresidential relocation is not usually plannedbeforehand, that of the replacing householdsis deliberate. Depending on the location of theresidential neighbourhood, the gentrifiersmay gain better access to urban centres andamenities. In addition, the process as a wholemay be spontaneous, piecemeal and unplanned,even though individual moves are usuallyintentional.
The gentrification process itself has beenexplained in different ways. The explanationsaddress the why, where, and how of gentrifica-tion, and also identify the actors. Approachesto the subject still under discussion can bedivided into two general categories. The structur-alist Marxist approach, led by Smith (1979),explains gentrification through the conceptof a rent gap, which represents the differencebetween ground rent under present land-useand potential rent under a more profitableuse. In Smith’s view, the process starts with thedecrease in land values in the inner-city. Thisoccurs when over investment in the productionsector steers capital towards the more profitablehousing sector as in the case of suburbanisationoutside the city centres. In its first stage, sub-urbanisation develops by attracting high-incomegroups. The concentration of housing invest-ment in suburbia and the neglect of the inner-city results in a devalorisation of the inner-cityhousing stock. As an outcome of the urbanrestructuring process of the last three decades,interest in the inner-city housing stockincreases. This, in turn, creates a rent gap, andredirects housing investment to the inner-city.
In the individual-oriented humanisticapproach, led by Ley (1996), the cultural pref-erences and demographic characteristics of thegentrifiers are emphasised. Professionalisationof the workforce, changing gender relationswithin the household and the workplace, anda particular set of meanings for inner-cityliving are the driving forces behind the process.The gentrifiers are identified as a particularsubgroup within the new middle class. They tendto be professionals in the arts and applied arts,the media, teaching, social services, and otherpublic and non-profit sectors. According to Ley,
gentrification has two stages. In the first stage,pioneers, also named as the risk-obliviousgroup, choose inner-city locations because oftheir cultural values, lifestyle, and the historicalvalue of the area. In the second stage, anothergroup, also named as the risk-averse group,choose inner-city locations because of theinvestment opportunities. At the end of thesecond stage the pioneers may even be displacedby the risk-averse group.
The rent gap theory mainly considers thegentrification process on the supply side. Onthe other hand, by the humanistic approach thedemand side of the gentrification process isconsidered. These two basic approaches mightbe considered together. At the initial stagesof the gentrification process the risk-obliviousgroup helps with the creation of a rent gapunintentionally. As the rent gap increases, therisk-averse group moves to the area subject togentrification. Therefore these two approachesmight be considered as complimentary theoriesexplaining the gentrification process (Clark1994; Uzun 2001).
RESEARCH APPROACH
As the largest city in Turkey, with respect topopulation size, scale of economic activity, andthe extent of its hinterland, Istanbul has main-tained its importance as an economic, socialand cultural centre throughout the centuries.The economic restructuring process of the1980s affected the whole city both profoundlyand rapidly, with the inner-city becomingsocially and spatially segregated. The highestincome groups prefer to move out to the peri-phery. There they live in luxurious enclavesthat are well protected and inaccessible to therest of the city. Middle-income groups are alsotrying to move out of the city, seeking alterna-tives in housing co-operatives and mass housingestates. On the other hand, squatter residentsare faced with the effects of the increasing costsof living in the urban fringe. Meanwhile, certainsections of the inner-city are being gentrified.
The information about the two gentrifiedneighbourhoods, Cihangir and Kuzguncuk, usedin this paper is based on a field survey of theseneighbourhoods, in which a total of 191 ques-tionnaires were conducted through face-to-face interviews in 1999 (Uzun 2001). At this
point it should be noted that at present, formalstatistical data enabling a study of gentrificationin Istanbul based on a comparison throughtime does not exist. In the absence of systematicdata on the demographic and physical charac-teristics of the neighbourhoods, a basis fordrawing a random sample from the surveyarea was unavailable. Instead, a quota-samplingmethod had to be used. This sample was basedon preliminary interviews, a review of writtenand visual material available, and visual surveys.For data collection, three methods were uti-lised. The first consisted of the collection andanalysis of written and visual material related tothe survey area. Although documents about thehistorical development of the neighbourhoodsdo exist, there is limited data on their presentsocio-economic and cultural states. Therefore,the second method utilised was to collect datathrough interviewing key informants. The thirdmethod was to conduct a sample survey amongthe gentrified population. In this paper, the datacollected through both surveys and interview-ing key informants together with the literatureon these two neighbourhoods and Istanbul, areutilised.
As the capital of Turkey, Ankara displayed apattern of growth shared with other Turkish cit-ies. After the foundation of the Turkish Repub-lic in 1923, one of the basic planning issueswas the elevation of Ankara, a modest town inAnatolia, to the status of capital city, involvingthe transfer of the capital city’s functions fromIstanbul to Ankara. Following the plannedgrowth in the first years of the Republic, the city,surrounded by squatter houses from the 1950sonwards, grew rapidly. Starting in the 1970s,improvements in transport technology enabledhigher and middle-income groups, squeezedinto high-density inner areas, to move intoperipheral housing areas. Thus, the extensionof the city along the main axes began and deve-loped with the addition of high-income sub-urban neighbourhoods. The squatter housingneighbourhoods, originally built on physicalthresholds such as valley bottoms, sloping hill-sides and the like, and located as near as poss-ible to the Central Business District (CBD) ofthe city and the main transport axes, were nowsurrounded by the extended city (Altaban 1997;Senyapılı 1997). Within the context of theurban restructuring process of the last 30 years,
the transformation of the large-scale squatterneighbourhoods remaining on prominentelements of the extending city now became aproblem for the local municipalities.
The information on the residents of the DVParea is based on 248 interviews undertaken inthe area, in the summer of 1995 (Dündar 1997),these interviews were held in the newly builthousing units in the area. Initially, field re-search was based on settlement characteristicsof the project and then preliminary interviewswere conducted with the residents. Three dif-ferent questionnaires were prepared, for theoriginal owner-occupiers, for tenants, and fornew owners. The field research was not limitedto the questionnaire results. In addition,open-ended interviews were conducted, writtenand visual data was examined, and all the law-suits initiated against the project were analysed.In this paper, the results of the survey, whichencompasses only 178 original owner-occupiers,are cited and supported with literature fromthe project.
GENTRIFICATION IN C2HANG2R
Cihangir, next to the Taksim-Beyoglu CentralBusiness District (CBD) of the city, is located ona hill with a panoramic view of the entrance to
the Bosphorus, with the historic peninsula andÜsküdar on the opposite shore, one of the bestviews in Istanbul (Figure 1).
Settlement in Cihangir dates back to thefifteenth century when Cihangir was a residen-tial area where Christians and Jews lived. As inother old neighbourhoods of Istanbul, outsidethe city’s historic peninsula, Cihangir was alsoa place where most inhabitants were non-Muslim until the mid-twentieth century. Theconstruction of apartment buildings and stonehouses at the end of the nineteenth centuryand in the first quarter of the twentieth centuryturned Cihangir into a dense residentialneighbourhood. From the 1930s through to the1950s, Cihangir was still a neighbourhood witha mixed population, but through time, it lost itsmixed social character. Following the SecondWorld War and after the foundation of the Stateof Israel, most of the non-Muslim population ofJewish origin emigrated out of Turkey. Gen-trification in Cihangir does not have a clear-cutbeginning; no date or event marks the startingpoint of the process. Initially, by the end of the1980s, it was hard to distinguish the gentrifyingtrend from the ordinary maintenance and ren-ovation activities taking place there.
Parallel to the transformation process inthe city in the 1980s, the Taksim-Beyoglu CBD,
Figure 1. The central part of Istanbul and location of Cihangir and Kuzguncuk.
started to regain its importance as a commercialand entertainment centre, which was lost in the1970s when the CBD shifted towards the West,and responded to new consumption patterns.The transformation of the old business centreonce more had an effect on adjacent Cihangir,and by the end of the 1980s, demand for dwell-ings in the neighbourhood started to increase.The appeal of the area was due to its view andproximity to the city centre. At first, artistsand intellectuals showed a special interest inCihangir because of its nostalgic ambianceand historic buildings. Cihangir became popularamong artists, academics and writers in the1990s, where individuals undertook most of therenovation activities. As the area became morepopular in the 1990s, the population started tochange rapidly, with the area being invaded byresidents of a higher socio-economic and cul-tural status (Üstdiken 1993; Elmas 1999).
According to the survey results of 1999, theaverage household size and the average num-ber of children per household were found to
be close to the urban averages (Uzun 2001).Most households consisted of nuclear families.Most household heads and their spouses wereborn in Istanbul or in other urban centres ofTurkey and had moved to Cihangir or had beenliving in Istanbul for several generations. Theratio of university graduates in Cihangir rose to45.2%. More than half of all sampled house-holds and their spouses spoke a foreign lan-guage and more than half of the employedhouseholds in the sample were artists or profes-sionals. Some 31% of the population sampleddeclared that they watched art programmes ontelevision, more than half read a newspaperevery day. Interest in art is another indicatorof the cultural profile of the population. InCihangir, 7.1% of the households collected valu-able art objects, such as paintings or antiques.In the process, the physical appearance of thenineteenth-century apartment houses were con-served as prestigious residences, and their innerspaces were redecorated (Figure 2). The newapartment houses that were built attempted to
Figure 2. Facades of nineteenth-century apartment houses that are kept in their original form.
catch the main design elements of the nine-teenth century in their structural appearance,despite the desire for profit maximisation.
The gentrification process in Cihangir was aslow one and proceeded at market conjuncture.The process gained velocity when entrepre-neurs, sensing the demand and motivated byrising rents, followed the artists entering thisfavourably located area, accessible to urbancentres and offering a view of the Bosphorus.Thus, this spatial transformation gained an invest-ment dimension. The gentrification process wasrealised by independent actors, responding tothe growing attraction of the area, proceedingon an individual basis. The area was invaded bya cultured group, followed by small-scale inves-tors oriented by market conditions, all attractedby the location. The resulting increases inprices and cost of living in the area led to thefurther attraction effect of the high-incomegroups and to a pushing out effect on the exist-ing residents in the area.
There has been no government intervention,except the declaration of a district, includingCihangir, as a protection zone by the ProtectionLaw of Cultural and Natural Assets, in 1994.One of the aims of this law is to identify, registerand protect properties of historical value. Itprohibits construction in historic buildingsunless permission has been granted by the localcouncils (Gedik 1997). Therefore this law limitedconstruction in Cihangir and helped with theprotection of nineteenth-century apartmenthouses that survived until 1994 in the area. Spa-tial transformation has been observed in innerresidence spaces and reflected only in conser-vation of some of the old tissue. The environ-ment is somewhat neglected in the process.Only recently, under the influence of risingurban property values, one of which is the con-servation of historical heritage, the residentshave become more conscious of environmentalvalues, and with the efforts of the CihangirBeautification Foundation, established in 1995.
GENTRIFICATION IN KUZGUNCUK
The settlement in Kuzguncuk, located by theBosphorus on the Anatolian side of the city, alsodates back to the fifteenth century (see Figure 1).The settlement is located inside a valleyopening to the shore. The backbone of the
settlement is Icadiye Street, which beginsby the shore, runs inland passing through thevalley, and climbs the slopes to the southeast,connecting most other streets within theneighbourhood.
The social space of Istanbul in the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries was structured aroundethnic communities. In most of the neigh-bourhoods, the inhabitants had the sameethnic and religious background, where Kuz-guncuk was an exception. It was known as thefirst Jewish settlement on the Anatolian side.It was also a settlement where the non-Muslimand Muslim population lived together for manyyears in a close and easy-going relationship.This continued until the mid-twentieth century.The out-migration of the non-Muslim popula-tion started at the end of the First World War.First, some Armenians moved away from Kuz-guncuk. After the Second World War, and thefoundation of the State of Israel, Greeks, Jews,and Armenians began to sell their houses;they either moved to other neighbourhoods inIstanbul, or out of the country (Akın 1993). Thesocio-cultural profile of Kuzguncuk in the late1950s and early 1960s displayed a rural migrantpopulation taking over the area from the orig-inal settlers.
Since the changes in Kuzguncuk were welldocumented, it was possible to determine thebeginnings of gentrification. The transforma-tion in Kuzguncuk began with the commit-ment of architect-author, Cengiz Bektas, to theupgrading of the neighbourhood and flour-ished under his influence. It began in 1979,when he bought an old house in the neighbour-hood and started to live there after upgradingit. He is a well-known architect in Turkish urbanand professional circles. His fame rests not onlyon his architectural achievements but also onhis books, his writings and talks on culture andconservation. Besides, his quest for a synthesisof the cultural past of society with contem-porary cultural traits in the preservation of theenvironment has a very important effect inKuzguncuk. By the time he moved to the neigh-bourhood, he was already a well-known andinfluential personality.
In the 1980s his artist friends, and those asso-ciated socially with them followed, buying theold houses in the area, while the originalpopulation was pleased to sell them and move on
to modern neighbourhoods in the city. Thus,a population exchange began in the area. Thisexchange, however, slowed in time, as Kuz-guncuk became a neighbourhood preferredby architects, artists and writers. This group alsobegan to organise social activities in the neigh-bourhood, along with upgrading and rehabili-tating the built environment with the residents(Figure 3). The newcomers not only succeededin mobilising residents, making them aware ofthe value of the environment they lived in, butalso succeeded in making an example of theneighbourhood city wide.
In Kuzguncuk, as in Cihangir, the averagehousehold size and the average number ofchildren per household were close to the cityaverage. Families were predominantly nuclearand the percentage of Istanbul born and bredhouseholds and spouses was higher comparedto neighbouring areas (Uzun 2001). Most hadmoved to Kuzguncuk from other urban centresor had lived in Istanbul for generations. Some32.1% of the residents of the area were univer-
sity graduates. The residents had higher levelsof proficiency in foreign languages. More thanhalf of the employed households were profes-sionals and traders and had artisan occupations.The percentage of artists was high. About 75.5%of the population sampled read a newspaperevery day, and art-based programmes and inter-national television channels were popular anda further 11.3% collected valuable art. Thepopulation seemed to prefer to affiliate with art,social and local organisations.
So gentrification in Kuzguncuk was realisedmore through the existing population con-sciously conserving the identity of the areaand certain urban values rather than through achange of population. Kuzguncuk at present isan example of conservation and gentrification,with its well-protected historical building stock,its clean streets, walls painted by artists, childrenand residents, and with public gatherings heldin the streets. Since the renewal in Kuzguncukwas consciously organised with the consensus ofold and new residents, all existing eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century buildings in the neigh-bourhood could be kept and preserved almostin their original forms. Part of the original popu-lation still resides in the area. So, comparedto the case in Cihangir, in Kuzguncuk, underthe leadership of the artist group, the area wasgentrified while displacement of the originalpopulation was limited.
The government contributed to the con-servation process through legislation, whichprohibited new construction in the areacompletely. Kuzguncuk is located in the front-sight area determined by the Bosphorus Devel-opment Law passed in 1983. This very specificlegislation aimed to protect the existing skylinealong the shore and the natural environment.Therefore, it restricted construction in thefront-sight areas and puts limits on constructionin the other zones (Ekinci 1993).
The transformation in Kuzguncuk resulted inincreased public awareness, the public identify-ing itself with space, the taking of space as areference point for identity, the development offeelings of pride and belonging, the achieve-ment of social unification, and a conscious con-servation of the environment. There has beena positive impact in the city and this case is oftencited as a positive, stimulating example. Therehas been a limited transfer of population anda conservation of the historical fabric of thebuildings has been achieved.
URBAN RENEWAL THROUGH THE D2KMEN VALLEY PROJECT (DVP)
Dikmen Valley was one of the main areas of thecity occupied by squatters, extending in a south-north direction for 5 km (Figure 4). The valleyis surrounded by high and middle-class hous-ing in the east and west. The DVP was designedas an urban renewal and development projectby a private planning company, in co-operationwith the Greater Ankara Municipality and otherdistrict municipalities in Ankara. The aimswere to transform the valley to a recreation areaon a city scale, to create a commercial, culturaland social urban node that could provide city-wide service, and to solve the housing problemof the 1,080 squatters living in about 550 houses(Figure 5) in the project area with a relocationmodel based on self-financing structure andparticipation (Metropol Imar 1994).
The project started in 1989 and initially, theinhabitants of the squatter houses were movedout of the area to temporary residences astenants, and their rents were paid by the munic-ipality. After the demolition of the squatterhouses, small, prefabricated apartment houseswere built for the squatters lining the edges ofthe valley, now rearranged as a large green park.As the first phase of the project was finished,the squatters moved into their new apartments.The owners were mostly migrants from inner
Figure 4. The central part of Ankara and location of theDVP area.
Figure 5. Squatter houses in the DVP area before theimplementation.
Anatolian towns (84.7%) who came to Ankaraduring 1940 to 1970. Average family size wasaround four; almost half were graduates ofprimary school (45.3%) and 5.4% were illiterate.Most owners were retired (44.9%), and most ofthe active work force was employed in thepublic sector as salaried employees (18.3%),followed by labourers (12.8%), and 54.7% didnot read newspapers (Dündar 1997).
One of the most important aims of the pro-ject was to keep the original population in thevalley in small-scale, prefabricated housing.These houses now occupy the two edges of thevalley extending to the north. The south of thevalley has been developed into luxury triplexvillas. These two different styles of housingare separated by a ‘prestige’ bridge (Figures 6and 7), with expensive stores, flanked by two high-income residential towers on both ends. Thisresidential and commercial bridge complex mayhave been considered and planned as an inte-gration zone for the two different residentialpopulations, but in fact the opposite happened.Gentrification occurred in the neighbour-hoods next to the southern section of thevalley, as the luxury villas were occupied bythe prestigious rich of the city. The prestigebridge complex, which was expected to integratethe two different populations, failed to fulfilthis function, as both residences and shopsstill remain vacant. The northern prefabricatedhousing section of the valley remains sociallysegregated from the luxurious developmentsin the south. Besides, the middle and highermiddle-income groups are located next to thenorthern section of the valley. The valley thusdeveloped into an area of social segregationand conflict.
Squatter lifestyles remain in the northernsection of the valley, with rugs being collectivelywashed and dried in the streets, women dressingmore in the village style, and coming together,drinking tea on the fire escapes. They are notused to the apartment style of life and are notcomfortable in small apartments. So, they havemoved to peripheral settlements, and tend toleave their residences in time and move elsewhereas soon as they can afford to do so. Land and pro-perty prices in the vicinity of the southern sectionbecame so high that even the municipality is nowparalysed, as it can no longer afford to expro-priate property to develop the environment.
Regarding the DVP it can be concluded that,in trying to solve the problems of derelict areas,especially in central locations with partial im-provement plans that do not take the social andphysical integration with the city into account,and without citizen participation, the projectmay fall short of creating a sustainable and live-able environment for the original dwellers.
CONCLUSION
The three residential transformation casesexamined in this paper had different charac-ters, and therefore different impacts on thesocial and spatial structure.
In case of Cihangir, the gentrification pro-cess initiated spontaneously and market forcesstimulated transformation. Because of its loca-tion next to the old city centre which regainedits importance within the context of the urbanregeneration processes of the 1980s and its
Figure 6. Prestige bridge in front, high-rise luxuriousapartment houses at the back.
Figure 7. A tower of the prestige bridge on the left and theprefabricated houses on the right.
reputation as an old prestigious Ottoman andearly Republican residential settlement, Cihangir’smarket attraction increased. The risk-obliviousgroup defined by Ley’s humanistic approach ispresent in the area and the ongoing structureof gentrification process in this neighbourhoodalso fits the rent gap theory of Smith. On theother hand, most of the existing nineteenth-century apartment houses in the area are keptin their original form in spite of market forces.This is achieved by government interventionthrough legislation.
It is possible to explain gentrification in Kuz-guncuk through the humanistic approach ofLey. The movement was led by a charismaticand effective leader, who was followed by otherartists settling in the area. This group canbe regarded as the risk-oblivious group. Theysucceeded in motivating the residents. Theyachieved an increase in awareness and sensitiv-ity towards preservation and the conservation ofthe physical environment. Thus, the pioneersare not displaced by the investors. Throughlegislation the area was preserved and negativeeffects of market forces in the area were avoidedin Kuzguncuk. In other words, government inter-vention hindered the effect of the rent gap.
In the third case, residential transformationwas planned by the government interventionthrough DVP. Different from the cases in Istan-bul, the spatial transformation in the area wasremarkable and had a positive visual effect onurban fabric. However, socially, the small-scaleprefabricated apartment houses built alongsidethe valley sides as alternative solutions to squat-ter houses did not turn out to be suitable forsquatter families. The existence of luxurious vil-las and the twin towers built together with theprefabricated houses, where a semi-rural lifestyle continued, created a dual social structure.The original population, squeezed betweenincreasing living costs in the area and dualsocial structures, started to leave. They soldor rented their apartments and moved to newsquatter housing or low-income apartmenthousing areas in the periphery. Therefore thetransformation problem has shifted to otherareas of the city.
It is possible to derive certain conclusionsfrom these three cases, which might be usefulin guiding the residential transformation pro-cesses currently on the urban agenda.
The transformation processes resulting fromactivation of market forces, as in the case ofCihangir, may expand in time, also drawingpopulation groups who may be at similar econ-omic but different socio-cultural levels, andthus may result in the failure of the structureof joint social targets and aims. So in the initialstages, transformation remains at an individualhousehold or building level and fails to includethe environment. As the transformation con-tinues living standards and living costsincrease where more and more value judgementsbecome based on economic criteria in the area.As a result the original population might nolonger be able to sustain its existence in thisheterogeneous social environment and mightleave the area as in Cihangir.
Alternatively, if one of the main objectivesof an improvement project is to keep most ofthe original population in the area and enablethem to achieve a transformation processthemselves to a certain extent, then the modelapplied in Kuzguncuk gives the impression thatthe inclusion of the residents in the projectfrom the very beginning may be the best solu-tion leading to achievement and maintenanceof success. This inclusion could be achievedby providing examples that would help toconvince, inform and motivate residents andincrease their consciousness. In the third case,in the Dikmen Valley, the local governmentdirectly controlled the transformation butfailed. This was first due to the failure in con-structing an organisation that would inform,persuade and motivate the former squattersand enable their participation. As a result, thecultural pressures driving the population outof the area had an especially negative impacton the young squatter generation, pushingthem to pessimism and disillusionment.
Second, the development of the DVP, inde-pendent from the urban whole, resulted in thefailure of the building of efficient connectionsand interrelations between the valley and otherimportant urban nodes, such as one city centre,focal transportation points, other valley devel-opments, and major residential areas. There-fore social and spatial integration with the citywas absent and transformation of the DVP hasbeen realised as a model unique to the area.
Several proposals on residential transforma-tion processes can be made referring to the
cases discussed in this paper. In areas whereresidential transformation is to be led by marketforces, governments should take necessary pre-cautions for the inclusion of the environmentin the development process, usually ignoredby transformations realised at individual or ona single building basis. In order to acceleratedevelopment, including the environment, againa solution may be sought in civic organisations.
In cases where efficient participation of thepopulation is present, transformation will notonly be limited by physical tissue but will includethe environment as well. This can be achievedwith convincing examples and increasing con-sciousness. Thus, implementation will be moreeasy and the project will be assimilated andabsorbed by the residents. More importantly,it may be possible to create a common socio-cultural environment shared by all with refer-ence to spatial development and transformation.Governments can provide the legal frameworkof rules and regulations for such projects.
When the transformation is realised by thegovernment, the problems faced in the DVPshould be avoided. So the project should bedeveloped within the framework of the City’sstrategic structure plans and participation shouldnot be limited to informing the population onan individual or co-operative basis, but encour-agement of the building of civic organisationsto lead the project may be more beneficial andefficient. Again, the importance of actual exam-ples should be underlined in environmentswhere public confidence and education levelsare comparatively lower.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Dr Tansı Senyapılıand Instructor Sevin Osmay of the Department ofCity and Regional, Middle East Technical University,for their invaluable criticisms.
REFERENCES
Akin, N. (1993), Kuzguncuk. Dünden Bugüne IstanbulAnsiklopedisi 5, pp. 145–146.
Altaban, Ö. (1997), Ulusal Yönetimin ve Toplum-sallıgın Kurgulandıgı Bir Baskent. ArredamentoDekorasyon 90, pp. 89–94.
Badcock, B. (1995), Building Upon the Foundationsof Gentrification: Inner-City Housing Develop-
ment in Australia in the 1990s. Urban Geography 16,pp. 70–90.
Beauregard, R.A. (1986), The Chaos and Com-plexity of Gentrification. In: N. Smith & P. Williams,eds., Gentrification of the City, pp. 35–55. Boston:Unwin Hynman.
Beauregard, R.A. (1990), Trajectories of Neighbor-hood Change: The Case of Gentrification. Environ-ment and Planning A 22, pp. 855–874.
Clark, E. (1994), Towards a Copenhagen Interpretationof Gentrification. Urban Studies 31, pp. 1033–1042.
Dündar, Ö. (1997), Changing Meanings of UrbanRenewal: Ankara Dikmen Valley DevelopmentProject. Unpublished PhD thesis, Middle EastTechnical University, Ankara.
Ekinci, O. (1993), Bogaziçi Yasası. Dünden BugüneIstanbul Ansiklopedisi 2, pp. 290–292.
Elmas, A.E. (1999), Cihangir’de Eski Evlere RagbetÇok. Adres 17, pp. 14–21.
Fainstein, S. (1995), The City Builders: Property, Politicsand Planning in London and New York, 2nd Ed.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lees, L. (1996), In the Pursuit of Difference:Representations of Gentrification. Environmentand Planning A 28, pp. 453–470.
Ley, D. (1996), The New Middle Class and the Remakingof the Central City. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lichfield, N. (1988), Economics in Urban Conserv-ation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metropol Imar (1994), Metropol 1mar 1989–1994.Ankara: Pelin Ofset.
Özkan, Ö. (1998), Policies and Processes of UrbanRegeneration in Turkey. Unpublished Ms thesis,Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Palen, J.J. & B. London, eds. (1984), Gentrification,Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany:State University of New York Press.
Rose, D. (1984), Rethinking Gentrification: Beyondthe Uneven Development of Marxist Urban The-ory. Environment And Planning D: Society And Space2, pp. 47–49.
Senyapili, T. (1997), Cumhuriyetin Dokudugu KentAnkara. Arredamento Dekorasyon 90, pp. 83–88.
Smith, N. (1979), Toward a Theory of Gentrific-ation. Journal of American Planners Association 45, pp.538–548.
Smith, N. (1986), Gentrification, the Frontier andthe Restructuring of Space. In: N. SMITH &P. Williams, eds., Gentrification of the City. Boston:Unwin Hynman.
Smith, N. (1996), The New Urban Frontier:Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:Routledge.
Smith, N. & P. Williams, eds. (1986), Gentrificationof the City, pp. 1–12. Boston: Unwin Hynman.
Uzun, C.N. (2001), Gentrification in Istanbul: ADiagnostic Study. Utrecht: KNAG.
Üstdiken, B. (1993), Cihangir. Dünden Bugüne Istan-bul Ansiklopedisi 2, pp. 430–431.
Van Weesep, J. & S. MUSTERD, eds. (1991), UrbanHousing for the Better-Off: Gentrification in Europe,pp. 89–97. Utrecht: Stedelijke Netwerken.
Zukin, S. (1987), Gentrification: Culture and Capitalin the Urban Core. Annual Review of Sociology 13,pp. 129–147.
