gentriﬁcationinistanbulrohcavamaintenant.free.fr/cle usbaiche/usb key fahriye...the bosphorus, new...

*Tel.: +90 (212) 2931360 (ext. 2321); fax: +9e-mail: [email protected]

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.07.004

0 (212) 2514895;

391

Cities, Vol. 21, No. 5, p. 391–405, 2004

Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

0264-2751/$ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Gentrification in IstanbulNilgun Ergun*ITU Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Taskısla,Taksim, 80191, Istanbul, Turkey

With changes in the political and economic world order as well as in the development of foreign com-mercial relations of Turkey, the country’s major cities entered a process of change during the 1980s,most notably in the location and use of some of the residential areas of Istanbul. While these areas ofmiddle and high-income groups moved to the periphery of the city, the residences in the older and morecentral settlements have been frequently changing hands. Some buildings in the central areas of thecity have been restored and are now used by people of upper social classes, income groups, culturesand lifestyles. This process is known as gentrification.

In this study, the gentrification process and its effects on a number of different neighborhoods in Istan-bul were investigated through a desk top study and the major developments in this process were high-lighted in an attempt to understand how gentrification developed in a city like Istanbul, the capital ofmany empires in different eras of history, and home to many nationalities and cultures. This studyacknowledges that political factors as well as the economic factors affect the location of the areaswhich are currently experiencing gentrification.Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Neighborhoods; Turkey; artists

Introduction

With a population of 10,018,735 in 2000 (SIS,2002), Istanbul is the biggest city in Turkey. Afterthe 1980s, along with the construction of thesecond Bosphorus Bridge and its adjoining high-ways, the construction of high-rise buildings beganon these axes to accommodate developments in thecommunication technology and transportationindustries (Dokmeci and Berkoz, 1994). Conse-quently, many members of the middle and high-income groups that had previously worked andlived in the central areas of the city moved to busi-ness centers and private neighborhoods, newly con-structed outside the city. These new sites wereconstructed in rural areas, the protection and infra-structure of which were usually provided by privatecompanies. This process intensified after the earth-quake of August 1999, with the movement of thehigher-income groups away from the city.While the expansion of residential areas to the

periphery of the city continues, another develop-ment can be observed in the older, more centralsettlement areas of the city. Their proximity to the

city’s business centers as well as historical architec-ture has meant that these central areas have thepotential to attract higher-income groups. The resi-dences in these quarters of Istanbul have beenchanging hands often since the 1980s. They havenow been restored and are being used by people ofupper income groups, cultures and lifestyles. Thisprocess is known as gentrification. This is the unit-by-unit acquisition of housing, displacing low-income residents by high-income residents. In the1970s and 1980s, higher-income professionals indeveloped countries moved to residences in the citycenter because of their low costs and easy access tobusiness areas, which led to the renovation ofmany of the old buildings of the major cities. Thispopulation was generally young professionals with-out children who had enough money to be able tomove to such areas. The process had a significantimpact on gentrification during this period, mostnotably in the movement of the working-class andimmigrant communities away from these newlyrenovated central locations.Much research has been conducted in the US,

Europe and Canada since the 1970s on gentrifica-tion of the city center. Some of this research evalu-ates the economic factors behind the process ofgentrification. Smith (1979, 1996) has argued that agentrification process is inevitable if a growing

Gentrification in Istanbul: N Ergun

‘‘rent gap’’ has emerged between the potentialvalue of the land and its existing use value. Thesize of the gap grows until it is possible for devel-opers to move back to the inner city and profitablyrealize the underlying value of the land throughrenovation or redevelopment of the buildings.Some researchers viewed the characteristics of

the gentrifiers to be of greater importance in theunderstanding of gentrification. Hamnett (1984)states that ‘‘gentrification is a physical, economic,social and cultural phenomenon, commonlyinvolves the invasion by middle-class or higher-income groups of previously working-class neigh-borhoods or multi-occupied ‘‘twilight areas’’ andthe replacement or displacement of many of theoriginal occupants.’’ Ley (1986, 1992, 1996), Filion(1991), Van Kempen and Van Weesep (1994),Bondi (1999) have suggested modifications in thesocio-cultural structure and residential policies asother significant factors that might lead to a pro-cess of gentrification. The modifications in thesocio-cultural structure mean displacement of theoriginal occupants of a rehabilitated settlement.Members of the middle-class, working in the citycenter, want to live in the inner city in order to becloser to their offices and socio-cultural activitiesand also want to be closer to those similar to them-selves. Their areas of interest, habits and demandsfor setting and keeping a life style at a certain stan-dard, are very important factors in a gentrificationprocess. Thereafter, low-income workers, immi-grants and those generally marginalized have toleave the rehabilitated areas.Rehabilitation is thus a way to maintain the

transformation of valuable but decayed buildingsin the city centers. But legal arrangements andcredits are essential for encouraging investments inthe city center. Thus, middle-class demand for liv-ing in the city center can be met, and on the otherhand, slums can be removed. Application ofrehabilitation methods changes according to thedifferent housing policies of the countries. Gentrifi-cation also occurs at different rates, under differentcircumstances, in different cities of different coun-tries. Subsequent research conducted in these coun-tries has compared different cities, countries andcontinents. For example, applications are mostly inaccordance with central government policies inEngland, whereas local government decisions aremore effective in the USA. In the period of ‘‘backto the city’’ in the USA, various arrangementsregarding taxes and rents were made that forcedlower-income residents to leave the city center. InFrance rent arrangements valid since 1948 delayedgentrification for a while, however, investors dis-covered the value of the city center when it startedto become vacant after long-term tenants had beenleaving spontaneously in the 1980s. The privatesector, with the support of land developers andcommittees were noticeably involved in investments

392

in USA, but individual entrepreneurs and landdevelopers were more effective in England. Privateand public sectors have worked together withthe NGO participation in France (White andWinchester, 1991; Gelb and Lyons, 1993; Lees,1994; Carpenter and Lees, 1995).Research was also conducted in some of the

former Eastern bloc countries (Sykora, 1996, 1999)and in other regions of the world such as Mexico(Jones and Varley, 1999), Latin America (Ward,1993), Turkey (Uzun, 2000, 2001, 2002; Merey-Enlil, 2000) and Israil (Gonen, 2002), althoughthey are limited in number. Other work has tried toidentify the types of gentrification from its firstappearance to the present (Hill, 1994; Dorling,1995; Lees, 1996). Gentrification has been con-strued as both destroyer and savior in the regener-ation of run-down areas, yet it is clear that it is notsimply one or the other. There are both positiveand negative aspects to gentrification (Atkinson,2000). For example, some are reacting against gen-trification in the centers of developed countries.People who react against gentrification are organiz-ing to obstruct the process. People sometimes go tocourt for their rights or sometimes struggle withthe gentrification process on the streets. To avoidthese responses, public participation is needed dur-ing rehabilitation applications. Attempts are inten-sified to preserve the original characteristics of thesettlement, its ethnic differentiation, its small-scalebusinesses and affordable rent values.This research has indicated that gentrification

generally takes place in the city center andespecially in neighborhoods with historical valueand interest. It began to develop in many countriesafter 1970 when cities entered a restructuring pro-cess following their expansion. In the gentrificationprocess, the location of the area (proximity to thecity center especially) and also its aesthetic andarchitectural value (especially in the historical partsof the city) is of importance to potential residents.Culture and art have been more evident in the firststage of gentrification; the appearance of artists inthese areas has led to the introduction of galleries,coffee houses, rock clubs, and this night life hasattracted gentrifiers to the area as well.In this study, the gentrification process and its

effects on different neighborhoods in Istanbul wereinvestigated through a desk top study and thecharacteristics observed in this process wereemphasized in an attempt to understand how gen-trification developed in a city like Istanbul, thecapital of many empires in different eras of history,and home to many nationalities and cultures.


Geographical patterns of gentrification inIstanbul

The process of gentrification in Istanbul firstbegan in the 1980s in Kuzguncuk and Ortakoy,located outside the city center on either side of theBosphorus. These settlements were among the mostprestigious residential areas of Istanbul. Then itwas observed in 1990s in Beyoglu, one of the mostpopular districts of Istanbul throughout its history.Since the beginning of 2000, it was also observed inthe Istanbul Historical peninsula. However, thereasons for its beginning and the processes of gen-trification differ (Figure 1).

Gentrification of the Bosphorus neighborhoods

The Bosphorus villages, which until the secondhalf of the 15th century earned their living fromagriculture and fishing, eventually became inte-grated into the city itself (Tekeli, 1992). In the 16thcentury, as sea transportation began to develop onthe Bosphorus, new uses were developed for thewaterway, so in addition to the gardens of thesummerhouses and palaces which had been con-structed for the daily use of the residents of thepalace, by the end of 16th century, residential set-

tlements had begun to develop at quite a pacebeginning at Ortakoy on the European side ofIstanbul (Kuban, 1996).Throughout its history, the Bosphorus has

always reflected the social, economic and culturalcharacteristics of its location. In the villages livefishermen and farmers, seasonal palaces and gar-dens are home to a wealthier management classand in the less intensive settlement areas live differ-ent ethnic communities. The settlements pre-1950were mainly constructed and used during theOttoman era and were left as a cultural heritage.The Bosphorus was a prestigious area for settle-ment during the period before the birth of theTurkish Republic in 1923. However, its prestigehas increased during the present era. After theminorities communities of Jews, Greeks and Arme-nians left Turkey in the 1960s, many of the settle-ments along the Bosphorus were abandoned, onlyregaining their popularity in the 1980s when theybegan to accommodate higher-income familiesintent on escaping the city’s increasing traffic pro-blems and the resulting pollution. Following theBosphorus law of 1983, buildings that mightincrease the residential density were restricted.

Figure 1 Gentrification areas of Istanbul

393


KuzguncukThe first process of gentrification in Istanbul was

observed in Kuzguncuk in the 1980s on the Asianside of the Bosphorus, chosen for its naturalbeauty and historical significance. It is a model vil-lage where Jews, Greeks, Armenians and Turkshave lived together peacefully throughout its his-tory and where a mosaic of cultures and religionshave been formed. It was the first Jewish settlementarea on the Anatolian side of Istanbul and wasknown as a Jewish village. It is believed that it alsohoused a large Greek community in the 17th cen-tury and Armenians in the 18th century (Bektas,1992). Kuzguncuk was not seriously sought afterby the Muslim Ottomans until the end of the 19thcentury. In 1914, 1600 Armenian, 250 Greek, 70Muslim, 400 Jewish and four foreign householdswere registered in Kuzguncuk In 1933, the popu-lation increased to 4000, 580 households populatedmainly by Jews, but also housing Greeks, Turksand Armenians (Bektas, 1996). Gradually, the min-ority populations of Kuzguncuk declined andconsequently the ethnic diversity which had socharacterized the village was lost. The buildings didnot attract the interest of higher-income groupsmuch because they were simply constructed, adjac-ent to one another on a small base area. Althoughthe Muslim residents did not abandon the district,it slowly became run down due to lack of care.According to Uzun (2000), when the famousTurkish architect Cengiz Bektas purchased an old,empty building, his attempt was regarded as quiteeccentric by the local residents but was then adop-ted after the renovation of the house. The planningprocess in Kuzguncuk has started with CengizBektas’ program which he prepared and imple-mented himself, by planning the common placesthat can be used to revitalize the neighborhood.About 100 houses were restored with public par-ticipation. Bektas has made the design, construc-tion supervision and consultancy of most of thesehouses without any charge. The government didnot intervene directly in the process, yet govern-ment policy did set the stage for gentrificationthrough its restrictive legislation (Uzun, 2002). Inthe 1980s, Kuzguncuk became an area muchsought after among the Turkish educated middleclasses; attracting poets, artists, architects andmusicians. As a result, the restoration of the oldhouses gained momentum and the number ofartists, architects and authors living in Kuzguncuktoday (perhaps the first gentrifiers of Istanbul) hasreached 50 households. The interest shown for thisancient Bosphorus village increased in step with theprocess of gentrification, resulting in an increase inthe price of land and property. The square meterprice of the building sites in the streets where gen-trification process occurred has grown six timesbetween 1998 and 2002 (http://www.ymm.net).

394

Uzun (2001) states that this conscious gentrifica-tion of the neighborhood has not had any of theusual adverse effects such as the removal of its for-mer residents because the first residents of theneighborhood, the Greeks, Jews and Armenians,had already left. It was observed from the recordsthat only 25 Greeks, 17 Jews and six Armenianswere living in Kuzguncuk in 1992 (Figure 2).

OrtakoyAnother neighborhood where the process of gen-

trification occurred during the 1980s is Ortakoy.Located almost directly across from Kuzguncuk onthe European side of the Bosphorus, it is a residen-tial area popular since Ottoman times, set on oneof the most beautiful points of the Bosphorus andthe location of the summer houses of the sultansduring the Ottoman Empire. The most importanthistorical feature of Ortakoy is the fact that theTurkish, Greek, Armenian and Jewish societiesfrom different cultures and different beliefs livedtogether harmoniously. This feature has surviveduntil today, but just like in Kuzguncuk, the popu-lation of minorities in Ortakoy has decreased.Seven hundred Jewish families are recorded as liv-ing in Ortakoy in 1936, out of a total populationof 16,000. Other than the palaces, the Ortakoymosque and the residences of the Greek, Armenianand Jewish tradesmen are located on the coastwhile the Muslim neighborhoods reside more alongthe stream that dissects the village inland.Ortakoy, with its three religious sanctuaries of a

mosque, synagogue and church, has occupied avery limited area along the Bosphorus for the past150 years, but at the same time represents uniqueexamples of 19th century civilian Ottoman archi-tecture. As the Greeks, Armenians and Jews wholived in the historical houses of the Ortakoy Squareleft or moved to other districts of Istanbul, Muslimfamilies from lower-income groups settled in theseresidences. During this period, the village becamerun down as the maintenance and repair of thehouses was not carried out as desired. Governmenthas played an indirect role in the gentrificationprocess of Ortakoy. In 1970s, a project that aimedto establish a handicraft village in Ortakoy wasprepared by the Ministry of Culture. In this pro-ject, priority was given to the natural view of theneighborhood and a questionnaire was prepared toinvestigate the problems and expectations of thelocal people. The interviews were made face to facewith 100 people and then it was decided to pre-serve the traditional characteristics of Ortakoy andprojects were prepared for buildings that would berenovated or restored. Some special different colorswere determined for existing and new buildings,but the implementation has been unsuccessful, andsome especially old buildings could not be pre-served (Aklan, 2003).


At the beginning of 1980s, two local artists(Bilge-Erkan Mestci) opened an art gallery in thisarea; and soon other artists followed suite. Stallswere set-up in the village on weekends to sell han-dicrafts and antiques (Karduz, 2002). After sometime, however, the square became over-run withstreet venders selling fast food. Ortakoy was reor-ganized in 1992 as part of a local municipality pro-ject started for Ortakoy Square and itssurroundings in 1989. The significance of the

square lies in its proximity to the above-mentionedstructures, each representing one of the Ortakoy’sthree religions (Isozen, 1992).The buildings that were subject to gentrification

in Ortakoy are mostly on a small base area, 2–3storey houses. The properties with historical valueand a sea view around the square were generallypurchased by the higher-income group while otherswere used by artists. In this period, drawings of thebuildings given a special notice of protection were

in Kuzguncuk
Figure 2 Views of gentrification
395


prepared and the square was reorganized onceagain, the urban furniture was renewed and restau-rants and cafeterias established. The square and itssurrounding area made for a lively atmospherewith art galleries, coffee houses, bars and restau-rants, handicrafts and an antique bazaar. However,a couple of years after the reorganization ofOrtakoy Square, bars, taverns and discothequesbegan to dominate as the potential for substantialprofits encouraged a more aggressive approachfrom local businesses. The increasing trafficthrough the village also created a parking problemand led to a wider transportation problem formany other settlements further down theBosphorus. After some time, the gentrifiers thathad renovated the historical houses around thesquare became increasingly dissatisfied by the newrecreational function the village had assumed. Thesquare meter price of the building sites in the Orta-koy Square and around where the gentrificationprocess had occurred, has increased by a factor of11 between 1998 and 2002 (http://www.ymm.net).At the end of the 1990s, most of these residences

are either empty or have changed their function,serving as food and beverage outlets or recreationunits. As the area became popular in Istanbul andeven throughout the country, centers of recreationstarted to occupy the neighborhood where thepopulation of the middle income families ofOrtakoy used to live. The families were disturbedby this, resulting in struggle between the new-comers and the old residents of the area. Since1999 a regression period started in Ortakoybecause of the dirty streets, problems of parkingand traffic jams. The shop owners in the Squareattacked the new Head of Municipality for lack ofattention to Ortakoy (Tanıs, 2000). The new Headof Municipality has prepared and implemented anew project to reorganize the Ortakoy Square in2000. The project comprises changing the furnitureof the square again, building a platform by the seafor amateur musicians, and determining colors forbuildings. An international company restored thehouse of the Balyan family–architects of Dolma-bahce Palace—in Ortakoy Square in 2002 andopened a restaurant named BOBOs (bourgeoisbohemian). The aim is to attract artists and upperincome groups with this restaurant and thus con-tribute to the revitalization of Ortakoy (http://www.x-ist.com) (Figure 3).

Gentrification of Istanbul’s old city center

The old city center of Istanbul comprises twosettlements on the two sides of Golden Horn,which differ from each other economically, socially,culturally and physically. One of these settlementsis Beyoglu, founded by the new arrivals fromEurope, and the other is the historical peninsularepresenting traditional Istanbul (Yerasimos, 1996).

396

Gentrification of the Beyoglu neighborhoodsBeyoglu is one of the most distinctive residential

and recreational areas of the historical center ofIstanbul. Although Beyoglu is a district, it is gener-ally known as the area centered around IstiklalStreet between Tunel-Taksim. Less than one quar-ter of the population of Beyoglu is Muslim as themajority of the population was of European originin the 19th century (Dokmeci and Cıracı, 1987,1999). As Ankara was established as the capital(1923), the embassies moved there and some of theforeigners working in the neighborhood left Beyo-glu as well. However, it continued to be one of themost distinguished districts of the city with its cine-mas and theaters, restaurants and patisseries, artgalleries and luxury shops (Dokmeci and Cıracı,1990; Celik, 1996).After World War II, as some of the more pros-

perous groups that had earned money from thewar economy came to Beyoglu for recreationalpurposes, its status as a center of entertainmentgradually began to change it. This developmentwent in tandem with a change in the populationprofile, since between 1947 and 1949 the Jews ofBeyoglu migrated to the newly founded Israel(Scognamillo, 1994). In subsequent years, interestin Beyoglu declined largely due to the substantialenlargement of Istanbul resulting from internalmigration, rapid urbanization, and the develop-ment of new districts and the relocation of rec-reational centers and changing trade patterns.Wealthier families also left the area for the expand-ing suburbia.Due to the tragic political actions directed at the

Greeks in 1955, this community abandoned Beyo-glu and so the coffee houses, patisseries and centersof recreation owned by them were closed. Simi-larly, a major change occurred in the social life ofBeyoglu as these places, popular meeting points forartists, were also closed (Armutcuoglu, 1985;Koker, 1997). As the migration from rural areas tothe cities was also happening at this time, Beyogluconveniently satisfied the demand for cheap resi-dential property for the new migrants. The abovecombination of factors led to a significant changein the complexion of the area.The neighborhood, comprising the first apart-

ment type designed buildings in Istanbul followingthe architectural traditions of western culture, wasconsidered strange by the migrants groups wholargely came from a rural background. In time,Beyoglu was transformed into a slum area. By the1980s, the shops that were located on the first floorof residential blocks were changed into trading cen-ters covering the whole building, transforming thestylish early 20th century residential areas intobusy trade centers (Baslo, 1998). In the 1990s,however, a nostalgic revival in the approach torenovation began in the district. The intelligentsiaand artists purchased and renovated many of the


old apartments, and as a result new cafeterias, res-taurants, bookshops and art galleries were openedlocally. New life was observed in Beyoglu, manifestmost obviously with the organization of the Istan-bul Film Festival.Beyoglu, which incorporated many historical

buildings of the late 19th early 20th century, wasidentified as an architectural site in 1994. As wellas Istiklal Street being a center for trade, the areawas reinvigorated once more with the culturalactivities enjoyed by the young generation.

TunelTunel is a prime example of the process of gen-

trification in Istanbul. Located at the southern endof the Istiklal Street, it is a neighborhood whereGermans, Italians, Russians, and Greeks lived andtraded together with Turks until the1970s, and anarea boasting a rich cultural diversity. The Jewstransformed the district, close both to the port and

the railway station, into a trading center. However,the cultural diversity was lost after the migration ofmany Jewish tradesmen and the Greek professionalclasses from this quarter of the city (Eldem, 1992;Inalcık, 1996). As the port lost its significance andnew residential areas emerged elsewhere, the neigh-borhood was affected adversely and the areaexperienced widespread dilapidation.Istiklal Street was closed to traffic in 1990, and

the commercial life of Tunel was badly affected.When commercial life stopped, the rental value ofproperties in Beyoglu declined. Tunel became acriminal area in time but started to change bymeans of an art gallery which opened in 1994.When the owner of the gallery (Ugur Bekdemir)came to the neighborhood there was only one artist(Muzaffer Akyol) there, but he did not only openan art gallery but also worked to organizing it.First, he tried to clean criminals from the neigh-borhood, and then started to call his friends here.

in Ortakoy
397


He organized more than 200 exhibitions herewithin 8 years. He has aimed that to keep the oldspirit of neighborhood where once many foreignersused to live and his many foreign friends rented orbought houses or ateliers in this area (http://nevarneyok.com 2002).Artists in particular settled in the historical resi-

dences of Tunel, then authors, journalists, archi-tects and advertisers began to settle here, restoringthe local properties at the same time. Besides theseindividual attempts, the restoration of buildings bysome businesses such as the art galleries and cul-tural centers attracted people to Tunel. As a result,coffee houses, bars and restaurants began to openup around these art galleries and cultural centers.The visual and electronic media did much to gainfame for the neighborhood. However, this newenergy also meant that it became increasinglyfashionable place and therefore expensive, anunwelcome development for its residents. Increaseof rents forces old tenants to leave the neighbor-hood in spite of their desire to stay there. Tunel,known in the past as the ‘‘Europe of Istanbul’’, hasnow extended its boundaries and moved towardsbecoming the cosmopolitan quarter of Istanbul,with its American, African and Asian residentsadded to the European population such as British,German, Russian and Italian who are still living inthe region, though few in number and its ‘‘identityopen to innovations’’ (http://www.insankaynaklar-i.com). It is obvious that the proximity of one ofthe metro stations currently under construction willhasten the process of gentrification.

CihangirOne of the residential neighborhoods of Beyoglu

is Cihangir, with its many residences enjoying aBosphorus view. All the wooden houses in Cihan-gir were burned down as a result of six firesbetween 1765 and 1916, and so no wooden build-ings were constructed after 1916. At the end of the19th century and the beginning of the 20th century,Cihangir became quite densely populated whenmany stone-buildings were constructed. Some ofthe Russian migrants who came to Turkey after1920 settled in Cihangir, an area occupied mostlyby non-Muslim minorities. As well as accommo-dating those in the entertainment industry in Beyo-glu, it also housed doctors’ surgeries, clinics,luxurious apartments and bordellos. As the non-Muslims left Turkey in the1960s and some of themigrants from Anatolia settled in the area, theplace changed in a way similar to that of Beyogluin previous times (Usdiken, 1991) and from the1960s until the early 1990s, low-income groupslived in Cihangir. Until the 1980s, Cihangir was ablack sheep neighborhood because of the trasves-tites and homosexuals living there. After pedes-tranization and organization of Istiklal Street, itgained importance again because of its attractive

398

location. Uzun (2000) states that gentrificationbegan in Cihangir after an artist couple (Beril-Oktay Anılanmert) purchased an apartment therein 1993. They renovated it without compromisingits unique characteristics. Other artists and aca-demics followed suite, understanding the historicalvalue of this quarter of the city. Cihangir becamepopular again with the settlement of the artists andthe popularity increased with the interest of themedia. As a result some people became uncomfort-able with this new popular identity, whereas manyothers preferred it there for that reason.Following the establishment in 1995 of the

Association for the Beautification of Cihangir(ABC), the renovation of the area was organizedfor the first time on a collective rather than an indi-vidual basis. The aim of the association, with amajority of its members made up of architects andprofessionals living mostly in Cihangir, was to pro-tect the unique structure of the apartments in theneighborhood during their renovation and also toincrease the quality of the living space. As a result,the profile of the population living in the neighbor-hood changed radically during the social renovationof Cihangir (Uzun, 2000). At the beginning, thischange amounted only to the settlement of a fewartists and academics in the neighborhood but itcontinues today at a considerable pace. Up until1994, apartments were replaced by many historicalbuildings in Cihangir by small-scale entrepreneurs.Although it is located in an architectural districtwhich protects historical buildings, the rules ofimplementation are not defined clearly in the pro-tection law, and this is then abused by some inves-tors. Nevertheless, the ABC and the residents of theneighborhood have been trying to preserve theremaining ones. ‘‘Living in Cihangir’’ becamefashionable and Cihangir is getting more popularwith its new cafes and bars and its new name of the‘‘Republic of Cihangir’’. This transformation ofCihangir and its increasing popularity haveincreased the price of residential areas considerablyas well as making the area attractive for futureinvestment. Today a 100–120 m2. unfurnishedapartment’s rent is between $ 1000 and 1200 permonth, and its selling price is between US$ 100,000and 150,000 depending on whether it has a sea viewor not (http://www.emlakpusulasi.com) (Figure 4).

GalataFounded by the people of Venice and Genoa,

Galata accommodated many bankers, tradesmenand seamen, and symbolized a lifestyle that wasvery different from the rest of Istanbul. While therewere more than a thousand taverns and more thansix thousand wine houses in the 17th century (amajority located in this region), the Galata StockExchange, established in 1864, also became astrong representative of the financial world of thatperiod (Kazgan, 1991). Opening up to western


trade during the Ottoman era led to the formationof a strong merchant bourgeoisie in Galata, withthe most impressive commercial buildings andapartments belonging to the minority groups(Akın, 1998).More than half the population of Galata was

non-Muslim until the 1930s. And while the Muslimpopulation of the 1950s was minimal, themigration from Anatolia between 1955 and 1960transformed the population profile and economicfortunes of the area. As a result, the buildings withhistorical and architectural value in Galata entereda process of dilapidation. Furthermore, the com-mercial life was subject to a radical transformationin the 1980s, being the first place to halt themigration from the east and southeast (Kazanc,2002). The withdrawal of the financial sector fromthis area had a great effect on the commercial lifeof Galata. The most important two commercialaxes of the former Galata are now filled with out-lets selling electrical goods.The majority of the residents in Galata today are

migrants. According to Islam (2002), Galata wasaffected by the nearby renovations and as a resultthe first effects of gentrification were in evidence bythe end of 1980s. The process began when archi-

tects or artists purchased or rented older buildingswith high ceilings, which were particularly suitablefor use as studios. The innovators quickly orga-nized themselves and formed an organization tobeautify the local environment. By organizing festi-vals and other cultural activities, they attractedpeople to the area. Until the mid-1990s, togetherwith Galata’s artistic community, only a few otherprofessionals moved to the area to live. But thereal influence of the gentrifiers occurred after 1995.According to a survey conducted by Islam (ibid.),only 17.3% of the gentrifiers moved to the areabefore 1995, but the figure rises to 60.8% duringthe last four years. The professionals—academi-cians, architects, journalists, caricaturists, filmdirector—bought 40 historical buildings andrestored them between 1999 and 2001 in Galata.One of the pioneers of the restoration (architectMete Goktug) bought and restored a 96 year-oldEnglish police station and changed it to a coffeehouse. A lot of coffee houses were opened inGalata which gained fame as a quite place in thecity center, very close to Istiklal Street but far fromits crowd. (Soykan, 2001). However, the problemof parking is real one in this area. Attempts havebeen made to create parking places by knocking

Figure 4 Views of gentrification in Cihangir

399


down some buildings and re-using the space. Therewas no increase in the square meter prices of build-ing sites between 1998 and 2002, but the averagerent of a furnished apartment about 100 m2 variesbetween US$ 800–1000 in Galata (http://www.em-lakpusulasi.com) Figure 5.

Gentrification of historical peninsula neighborhoodsContrary to the Bosphorus and Beyoglu neigh-

borhoods, the population of foreigners in the his-torical peninsula of Istanbul was around 1.5%.While Galata and the Bosphorus were growingduring this period in terms of residential locations,a slow, stable development occurred on the histori-cal peninsula (the old city center of Istanbul). Celik(1998) states that the neighborhoods of the histori-cal peninsula were separated according to nations,other than the trade area in Eminonu, wherepeople of different ethnic groups or religions wereworking side by side. Muslims, who constituted thelargest group, were living in the center of the his-torical peninsula, the Armenians, Greeks and Jewssettled more along the Marmara and Golden Horn

400

coasts. When the Sultan’s residence moved fromTopkapı to Dolmabahce in 1856, the historicalpeninsula lost its significance. In this period, indus-try caused major modifications mainly along thecoast of the Golden Horn. As a result, summer-houses, waterside residences and gardens wereabandoned and factories were built in their place.The chaotic industrial growth observed on the twocoasts of Golden Horn from the mid-19th centuryonwards transformed the traditional appearance ofthe city. During this period, the wealthy minoritiesliving in the region moved to the newly developedresidential areas of Istanbul. The historical areasby the Golden Horn and behind were adverselyaffected by this change and the areas becameincreasingly run down.Following the Habitat II meeting in Istanbul in

1996, a UNESCO project was initiated in the fol-lowing year. As a result of the participation ofnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) to theproject, the European Union announced that itwould provide financial support with NGO fund-

Figure 5 Views of gentrification in Galata


ing. The project aims not only to carry out physi-cal but also social restoration (Kalkan, 2002).

BalatBalat is one of the oldest districts of Istanbul.

Located between Fener and Ayvansaray on thesouthern side of the Golden Horn, it is significantbecause of its geographical location, history and itscosmopolitan demographic structure dating fromthe Byzantine era. Balat is an especially importantdistrict for the Jews of Istanbul. The MacedonianJews that were brought to Istanbul after the con-quest and those who came from Spain were reset-tled in this area along with smaller populations ofGreeks, Armenians and Muslims (Deleon, 1997).However, Balat lost its significance with the chan-ging patterns of marine trade. Industry came to theregion in the 19th century changing the appearanceof the area (Tekeli, 1994). This transformation washeightened by the fires that constantly plaguedBalat. The social structure of the district changedtoo, especially along the coast, which became occu-pied by sailors and street vendors with the weal-thier classes residing in Balat’s interior (Akın,1993).Following the movement of some Jews to the

wealthier Galata or to Israel following the foun-dation of the state of Israel in 1948, traditionalcommercial life was affected (Yalcın, 1992).Among the minorities, only those from lower-income groups and the ones that had moved tothe new residential area at the time remained.Today, this historical district is a poor settlementarea where the overwhelming majority of thepopulation is Turkish. Most of the people wholive there today are immigrants from the BlackSea and Marmara regions of Turkey. The‘‘Fener-Balat Rehabilitation Project’’ was pre-pared following the Habitat II meeting in Istan-bul in 1996, and implementation started in June2003 (Gul, 2003). The aim of the project is torecreate a viable, vital community while protect-ing the district’s cultural heritage. The projectwill see 200 historical buildings refurbished andrestored to provide residents with decent accom-modation. Basic infrastructure—such as betterdrainage for rainwater runoff, the provision ofgas for cooking and heating, electricity and gar-bage collection—will be provided. The projectwill be realized with the a budget of 7 millionEuro of European Community and UNESCOfunds (European Union Representation of theEuropean Commission to Turkey, Press Release,2003).Williams and Hukun (2000) state that one of the

biggest problems is ensuring that the rehabilitationof this area does not result in the expulsion of poortenants. Representatives of UNESCO says thatthey will be taking some measures during the resto-ration work for the poor families living in 35–40 m2

houses with many children. One of these measures isto maintain the low rents during the next five yearswith agreements between landlords and the projectauthorities. But there is no definition of what theywill do when the agreement period ends (Tayyar,2003).The other measure is to keep the buildings sold

after 1997 outside the scope of restoration workand thus let the low-income people of Balat benefitfrom this rehabilitation. The head of ‘‘Volunteersof Fener and Balat Association’’ (Journalist ErsinKalkan) shows Ortakoy and Beyoglu, which arenow full of bars as negative examples. He says thatthey have taken lessons from those neighborhoodsand they do not want to change the social structureof Balat. Because of the long period before theproject started, many buildings changed hands andsome people, who learned of the project years ago,bought 8–10 houses with alcoves and changedthem to bars, pensiones or some other business.Recently, an intensive restoration started in somebuildings which are bought by architects, academi-cians, artists, writers, advertisers, movie makers,fashioners, journalists and businessmen (Ozkan,2003). As Islam (2002) has stated, these gentrifiers,the artists and reporters, are trying to protect thearea so that Balat may became a model for otherdistricts to follow.Representatives of UNESCO say that moving

the upper income people to Balat is against the aimof the project, but also that it is an inevitabledevelopment that will happen even if EU andUNESCO projects do not exist. One of the mem-bers of the council of managers ‘‘Volunteers ofFener and Balat Association’’ (Hikmet Bardak)says that the existing residents of the Balat are notsuitable to the pattern of the neighborhoodbecause they are invaders. He also says that highlyeducated people will move here after implemen-tation of the project and Balat will be a popular artand cultural center like Cihangir, so they arechoosing real Istanbul residents when they are sell-ing and renting houses (Akbulut, 2003). One adver-tisement presents Balat as a very important areafor investment and it is announced as ‘‘The regionmost appreciating in value in Istanbul!Balat’’(http://www.adresdergi.com.tr). The squaremeter price of the building sites in Balat hasbecame 10 times more between 1998 and 2002(http://www.ymm.net). Indeed, today it is notpossible to come across any minority populationsuch as Jews or Greeks in the district. The bay-windowed houses with three floors that the Greeks,Jews and Armenians previously occupied are stillthere, but most of them are run down; althoughsome of them have been renovated and now func-tion as art centers (Figure 6).

401


Conclusions

Throughout its history, Istanbul has been the

capital of empires and a place which has accom-

modated many different nationalities. In the last

century, several economic and political develop-

ments have resulted in some minorities migrating,

402

mainly to other countries, or moving to new resi-dential areas in Istanbul.

. After the foundation of the Turkish Republic in1923 and the designation of Ankara as the capitalcity, the embassies that had been established inIstanbul to serve during Ottoman period left

in Balat


Istanbul for the new capital. As the embassiesleft, many of those associated with them left too.

. The newly founded State of Israel in 1948 led tomany Jews abandoning Istanbul.

. Some Muslims, Jews, Greeks and Armeniansfrom the high-income group from neighborhoodsclose to the old city center moved to the popularnew settlement areas around the city in the 1950s.

. Because of political tensions between Turkey andGreece, some of the Greeks living close to the oldcity center migrated to Greece between 1955 and1960.

These developments led to an evacuation ofIstanbul, especially in the regions where minoritieslived, and the abandoned areas have becomepotentially open to gentrification. Nevertheless, fol-lowing the migration from the rural areas(especially to major cities due to the liberal econ-omic policies implemented during this period), thepeople who came to Istanbul from the villages set-tled in the residential areas close to the city center.These had previously been evacuated by the above-mentioned groups.These regions, with residences of historical,

architectural and aesthetic value, usually located ina limited area, experienced considerable dilapi-dation in the period between 1960 and 1980. But asthe international standing of Turkey strengthenedand the economy improved, a process of gentrifica-tion began after the 1980s. Every neighborhood inwhich the process of gentrification is taking place isaffected by the process in a different way, accordingto its physical location and social composition. Thefollowing results can be seen in the gentrificationprocess of Istanbul:

. It can be seen that architects and artists especiallywere the pioneers in the gentrification process ofIstanbul.

. Following the process of gentrification, buildingswith historical value in the area are renovatedand either still used for residential purposes (Kuz-guncuk, Cihangir) or some of them are trans-formed from houses to commercial, recreationalunits, art galleries or ateliers (Ortakoy, Tunel,Galata). Those living in or close to the gentrifiedarea either reacted (Ortakoy) or adopted the gen-trifiers and participated in the improvement ofthe area (Kuzguncuk, Cihangir).

. There was no direct impact from governmentsand municipalities in the process of gentrification,excluding Balat. The indirect effect of govern-ments was as a law maker (such as the BosphorusLaw, or the Conservation Law) while munici-palities re-organized some squares and streets.Generally, gentrification processes started with

individual attempts, then following the increase inbuildings’ prices and rents, some small-scaleentrepreneurs bought, restored and sold or rentedsome historical buildings. People tried to controlgentrification process via associations, except inOrtakoy.

. Municipality elections also affected the gentrifica-tion process. The failure of gentrification in Orta-koy and the delay of the project implementationin Balat despite the economic support of EU andUNESCO is due to the change of the localmunicipality and newcomers’ lack of desire tocontinue the projects.

. The gentrification process is a diverse one. Forexample, buildings with historical value are reno-vated and used for residential purposes, then theyare abandoned once again or they change func-tion and the area is transformed into a trade orrecreation center (Ortakoy). Or it may becomeinvigorated by its gentrification (Kuzguncuk,Cihangir, Tunel, Galata). And in some examples(Balat), the area is at the beginning of therehabilitation process but it is supposed that theneighborhood’s residents will change after com-pletion of the project’s implementation.

It can be seen then that the gentrification processin Istanbul is following a similar pattern to exam-ples in other countries. However, it has differencesin some aspects. The first one is that the gentrifica-tion process has started later when compared withthe other countries, because Turkey’s economy hasshown a major development only after the 1980sand the inner city areas were in decay until then.The gentrification process has started at residentialareas far from the historical city center, becausethe Bosphorus is one of the most valuable places inIstanbul in terms of its location and view. Andfinally, gentrification in Istanbul has so far takenplace in areas previously occupied by foreigners orminority groups, that were either empty or havebecome occupied by migrants from the rural partsof Turkey. So political developments, as well as theeconomic factors, have also affected where gentrifi-cation has taken place in Istanbul.

References

Akın, N (1993) ‘‘Balat’’, Dunden Bugune Istanbul Ansiklopedisi,(The Encyclopedia of Istanbul from Yesterday to Today, TheJoint Publication of the Ministry of Culture and the Foun-dation of History), vol. 2. TC.Kultur Bakanlıgı ve TarihVakfı, Istanbul, pp. 12.

Akın, N (1998) 19. Yuzyılın Ikinci Yarısında Galata ve PeraIstanbul. (Galata and Pera in the Second Half of the Nine-teenth Century), (Istanbul).

Akbulut, Y (2003) Halic’in Evleri Yenilenirken Halkı da Yenilenecekmi (Will the People also be Renovated While Golden HornHouses are being Renovated). 18 Mayıs 2003, Aksam Gazetesi.

403


Aklan, E (2003) Ortadaki Koy; Ortakoy, Duslerin Parlayıp Son-dugu Bir Yer (The Village in the Middle; Ortakoy, A PlaceWhere the Dreams Shine and Extinct). 4. Boyut aIletisimToplum Kultur Dergisi, I.U. Sayı: 3.

Armutcuoglu, F (1985) Istiklal Caddesindeki Pasajların Canlandır-ılması ve Ulasım Cozumleri. (Revitalization of Passages on theIstiklal Street and Transportation Solutions), ITU, SosyalBilimler Enstitusu.

Atkinson, R (2000) The hidden costs of gentrification: displace-ment in Central London. Journal of Housing and the BuiltEnvironment 15, 307–326.

Baslo, M (1998) Tarih Boyunca Galata-Beyoglu Kurgusunun Gelisimive 19. Yuzyıl Otellerinin Bu Gelisime Etkileri. (Development ofGalata-Beyoglu Structure in the History and Effects of the Nine-teenth Century Hotels), MSU, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu.

Bektas, C (1992) Kuzguncuk. Istanbul 2, 87–96.Bektas, C (1996) Hosgorunun Oteki Adı: Kuzguncuk. (The Other

Name of Tolerance: Kuzguncuk), Tasarım Yayın Gurubu,Istanbul.

Bondi, L (1999) Gender, class, and gentrification: enriching thedebate. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(3),261–282.

Carpenter, J and Lees, L (1995) Gentrification in London, NewYork and Paris: an international comparison. InternationalJournal of Urban Regional Research 19, 286–303.

Celik, Z (1996) The Remaking of Istanbul, Portrait of an OttomanCapital in the Nineteenth Century. University of Washington,Seattle.

Celik, Z (1998) 19.yy’da Osmanlı Baskenti: Degisen Istanbul.(Ottoman Empire in Nineteenth Century: Changing Istanbul),Tarih Vakfı.

Deleon, J (1997) Balat ve Cevresi, Istanbul’un Fethi ve HalicSemtleri. (Balat and its Around, Conquer of Istanbul andGolden Horn Neighborhoods), Remzi Kitabevi, Istanbul.

Dorling, D (1995) Visualizing changing social structure from acensus. Environment and Planning A 27, 353–378.

Dokmeci, V and Berkoz, L (1994) Transformation of Istanbulfrom a monocentric to a polycentric city. European PlanningStudies 2, 193–205.

Dokmeci, V and Cıracı, H (1987) Beyoglu’nun Tarihsel Gelisimi.Mimarlık 71, 42–47.

Dokmeci, V and Cıracı, H (1990) Tarihsel Gelisim SurecindeBeyoglu (Beyoglu: in the historical development process),I.T.O.K.

Dokmeci, V and Cıracı, H (1999) From Westernization to globaliza-tion: an old district of Istanbul. Planning History 21(3), 13–22.

Eldem, E (1992) Galata’nın Etnik Yapısı. Istanbul 1, 58–63.European Union Representation of the European Commission to

Turkey (2003) Press Release, 5 March 2003.Filion, P (1991) The gentrification-social structure dialectic: a

Toronto case study. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 15(4), 553–574.

Gelb, J and Lyons, M (1993) A tale of two cities: housing policyand gentrification in London and New York. Journal of UrbanAffairs 15, 345–366.

Gonen, A (2002) Widespread and diverse neighborhood gentrifi-cation in Jerusalem. Political Geography 21(5), 727–737.

Gul, A (2003) Halicliler Rehabilite Oldu (The Golden Horn Peoplehave been Rehabilited). 17 Haziran 2003, Aksam Gazetesi.

Hamnett, C (1984) Gentrification and residential location theory:a review and assessment. In Geography and the Urban Environ-ment: Progress in Research and Applications. (eds.) D Herbert,RJ Johnston, pp 282–319. Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hill, E W (1994) Neighborhood reinvestment, service factories andcommercial gentrification: a policy solution that will not work.Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 12, 484–489.

Inalcık, H (1996) Fatih, Fetih ve Istanbul’un Yeniden Insası. InDunya Kenti Istanbul (The Conqueror, the Conquest and theRestructuring of Istanbul). pp. 22–38. Turkiye Ekonomik veToplumsal Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

Islam, T (2002) Gentrifıcation in Istanbul: a comparison of differ-ent cases. In: Upward Neighborhood Trajectories: Gentrifica-tion in a New Century Conference. (Glasgow, Scotland).

404

Isozen, E (1992) Ortakoy meydani cevre duzenlemesi (The Reor-ganization of Ortakoy Square). Istanbul.

Jones, G A and Varley, A (1999) The reconquest of the historiccenter: urban conservation and gentrification in Puebla,Mexico. Environment and Planning A 31, 1547–1566.

Kalkan E (2002) Balat. www.istanbullife.org/balat.htm.Karduz, A (2002) Lokanta Icinde Asırlık Cınar (A Century Year

Old Plane in a Restaurant). Sabah Gazetesi, 26 Subat 2002.Kazanc, O (2002) Beyoglu Han ve Pasajlarının Kullanımı ve Yeniden

Canlandırılabilmeleri Icin Bir Arastırma (A Research ForRevitalizing and Usage of Beyoglu Khans and Passages).Master Thesis, Advisor: Nilgun Ergun, ITU Fen BilimleriEnstitusu.

Kazgan, H (1991) Galata Bankerleri. (Bankers of Galata), TurkEkonomi Bankası A.S, Istanbul.

Koker, O (1997) 6–7 Eylul Notları (Notes on the 6–7 September),Istanbul, 20.

Kuban, D (1996) Istanbul: Bir Kent Tarihi. (Istanbul: A CityHistory), Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı,Istanbul.

Lees, L (1994) Gentrification in London and New York: anAtlantic Gap? Housing Studies 9(2), 199–217.

Lees, L (1996) In the pursuit of difference: representations of gen-trification. Environment and Planning A 28, 453–470.

Ley, D (1986) Alternative explanations for inner-city gentrifica-tion: a Canadian assessment. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 76(4), 521–535.

Ley, D (1992) Gentrification in recession: social change in sixCanadian inner-cities, 1981–1986. Urban Geography 13(3),230–256.

Ley, D (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of theCentral City. Oxford University Press, New York.

Merey-Enlil, Z (2000) Yeniden Islevlendirme ve Soylulastırma(Regeneration and Gentrification), Domus M. pp. 46–49.

Ozkan, F N (2003) Yeni Balatlılar (The New Balat People). 4.Boyut Iletisim Toplum Kultur Dergisi, I.U. Sayı: 3.

Scognamillo, G (1994) Beyoglu Eglenirken (While Beyoglu wasHaving Fun). Istanbul, 8.

S.I.S. (2002) State Statistics Institute, Census of Population 2000.Ankara.

Smith, N (1979) Toward a theory of gentrification. Journal ofAmerican Planners Association 45, 538–548.

Smith, N (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and TheRevanchist City. Routledge, London.

Soykan, T (2001) Tarihin Galatalı Ev Sahipleri (Galata Landlordsin History). 5 Mart 2001, Radikal Gazetesi.

Sykora, L (1996) Economic and social restructuring and gentrifi-cation in Prague. Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Uni-versitatis Comenianae (Geographica) 37, 71–81.

Sykora, L (1999) Change in the internal spatial structure of post-Communist Prague. GeoJournal 49, 79–89.

Tanıs, T (2000) Gerileme Donemi : Ortakoy Geriye Gidiyor(Regression Period: Ortakoy is Getting Worse). 4 Aralık 2000,Hurriyet Gazetesi.

Tayyar, M (2003) Bırakın Balat’ı, Yoksul Guzelligiyle Kalsın (LetBalat Stay with its Poor Beauty). http://www. balat.net/haberler.htm.

Tekeli, I (1992) 19. yuzyılda Istanbul Metropoliten AlanınınDonusumu. In Modernlesme Surecinde Osmanlı Kentleri(Transformation of Istanbul Metropolitan Area in the 19thCentury). (eds.) P Dumont, F Georgeon, Tarih ve Yurt Yayın-ları, Istanbul.

Tekeli, I (1994) The Development of the Istanbul MetropolitanArea: Urban Administration and Planning. Kent Press,Istanbul.

Usdiken, B (1991) Beyoglu’nun Eski ve Unlu Otelleri-I (Old andFamous Hotels in Beyoglu). Tarih ve Toplum.

Uzun, (Duruoz), C N (2000) Eski Kentte Yeni Konut Dokusu:Cihangir ve Kuzguncuk’ta Sosyal ve Mekansal Yenilenme(New Housing Pattern in the Old City: Gentrification inCihangir and Kuzguncuk). Istanbul 35, 54–61.

Uzun, C N (2001) Gentrification in Istanbul: A DiagnosticStudy. Utrecht, KNAG/Facuteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen


Universteit Utrecht (Netherlands Geographical Studies,No. 285).

Uzun, C N (2002) Kentte Yeni bir Donusum Sureci ve YasalDuzenlemeler (A New Transformation Process in the City andLegal Organizations). Planlama, Sayı: 2002/1, 37–44.

Van Kempen, R and Van Weesep, J (1994) Gentrification and theurban poor: urban restructuring and housing policy inUtrecht. Urban Studies 31, 1043–1056.

Ward, P M (1993) The Latin American Inner City: differences ofdegree or of kind? Environment and Planning A 25, 1131–1160.

White, P and Winchester, HPM (1991) The poor in the inner city:stability and change in two Parisian neighborhoods. UrbanGeography 12, 35–54.

Williams, S and Hukun I (2000) Rehabilitation not Gentrification.UNESCO Sources 10146989, Issue 119 p22, 2p Item: 2797651Academic Search Premier Section: Habitat.

Yalcın, E (1992) Balat From The 20’s To 60’s Some Observationson the Social Structure and Changes. Istanbul.

Yerasimos, S (1996) Batılılasma Surecinde Istanbul. In DunyaKenti Istanbul (Istanbul in the Westernization Process).

pp. 48–54. Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih VakfıYayınları.

http://www.adresdergi.com.tr (2001) Istanbul’da En Fazla PrimYapacak Bolge! Balat. The Region most Appreciating inValue in Istanbul! Balat) Temmuz 2001.

http://www.emlakpusulasi.com (2003) Istanbul Chamber of Gen-eral Real Estate Commission Agents is Member of FIABCI(The International Real Estate Federation).

http//www.insankaynaklari.com/bireyler/trends/edusunce/pera.asp.http://www.nevarneyok.com (2002) Ugur Bekdemir ile Yapılmıs

Olan Bir Soylesi (An Interview with Ugur Bekdemir), Kasım2002.

http://www.x-ist.com (2003) Ortakoy’de Yeni Bir Kavram veMekan : BOBOs (A New Concept and Space in Ortakoy:BOBOs). 28 Agustos 2003.

http://www.ymm.net/vergirehberi/emlak_vergisi.htm (2002) 1998ve 2002 yıllarında xIstanbul Defterdarlıgı Emlak VergisineEsas Arsa ve Arazi Birim Degerleri (The Squaremeter Pricesof the Building Sites in Istanbul Based on Real Estate Tax inthe Years 1998 and 2002).

405

gentriﬁcationinistanbulrohcavamaintenant.free.fr/cle usbaiche/usb key fahriye...the bosphorus, new...

Documents