Gentrification in Istanbul

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.07.004

Cities, Vol. 21, No. 5, p. 391405, 2004

Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

st

an an

ordcitiehe repheryg haopletion.

ectsnd thationomehe ec

Introdu

With2002), Ithe 198secondways, thon thesecommunindustriquentlyincomelived inness censtructedconstrucstructurcompanies. This process intensied after the earth-quake ohigher-iWhile

peripherment casettleme

chitec-ve thehe resi-e beeny haveople ofs. Thise unit-g low-In thenals inhe citycess toion ofs. Thiss with-able to

move to such areas. The process had a signicantimpact on gentrication during this period, most

ss andnewly

he US,trica-evalu-

ates the economic factors behind the process ofgentrication. Smith (1979, 1996) has argued that agentrication process

t. 2321); fax: +90 (212) 2514895;391Tel.: +90 (212) 2931360 (exe-mail: [email protected] is inevitable if a growing

*f August 1999, with the movement of thencome groups away from the city.the expansion of residential areas to they of the city continues, another develop-n be observed in the older, more centralnt areas of the city. Their proximity to the

notably in the movement of the working-claimmigrant communities away from theserenovated central locations.Much research has been conducted in t

Europe and Canada since the 1970s on gention of the city center. Some of this researcha population of 10,018,735 in 2000 (SIS,stanbul is the biggest city in Turkey. After0s, along with the construction of theBosphorus Bridge and its adjoining high-e construction of high-rise buildings beganaxes to accommodate developments in theication technology and transportationes (Dokmeci and Berkoz, 1994). Conse-, many members of the middle and high-groups that had previously worked andthe central areas of the city moved to busi-ters and private neighborhoods, newly con-outside the city. These new sites wereted in rural areas, the protection and infra-e of which were usually provided by private

ture has meant that these central areas hapotential to attract higher-income groups. Tdences in these quarters of Istanbul havchanging hands often since the 1980s. Thenow been restored and are being used by peupper income groups, cultures and lifestyleprocess is known as gentrication. This is thby-unit acquisition of housing, displacinincome residents by high-income residents.1970s and 1980s, higher-income professiodeveloped countries moved to residences in tcenter because of their low costs and easy acbusiness areas, which led to the renovatmany of the old buildings of the major citiepopulation was generally young professionalout children who had enough money to bection citys business centers as well as historical arGentrication in INilgun Ergun*ITU Faculty of Architecture, Department of UrbTaksim, 80191, Istanbul, Turkey

With changes in the political and economic worldmercial relations of Turkey, the countrys majormost notably in the location and use of some of tmiddle and high-income groups moved to the pericentral settlements have been frequently changincity have been restored and are now used by peand lifestyles. This process is known as gentrica

In this study, the gentrication process and its ebul were investigated through a desk top study alighted in an attempt to understand how gentricmany empires in dierent eras of history, and hacknowledges that political factors as well as twhich are currently experiencing gentrication.Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Neighborhoods; Turkey; artists0264-2751/$ - see front matter

anbul

d Regional Planning Tasksla,

er as well as in the development of foreign com-s entered a process of change during the 1980s,sidential areas of Istanbul. While these areas ofof the city, the residences in the older and morends. Some buildings in the central areas of theof upper social classes, income groups, cultures

on a number of dierent neighborhoods in Istan-e major developments in this process were high-developed in a city like Istanbul, the capital ofto many nationalities and cultures. This studyonomic factors aect the location of the areas

rent gap has emerged between the potential in USA, but individual entrepreneurs and land

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergunvalue 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 protablyrealize the underlying value of the land throughrenovation or redevelopment of the buildings.Some researchers viewed the characteristics of

the gentriers to be of greater importance in theunderstanding of gentrication. Hamnett (1984)states that gentrication 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 modications in thesocio-cultural structure and residential policies asother signicant factors that might lead to a pro-cess of gentrication. The modications 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 oces 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 gentricationprocess. 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 thedierent housing policies of the countries. Gentri-cation also occurs at dierent rates, under dierentcircumstances, in dierent cities of dierent coun-tries. Subsequent research conducted in these coun-tries has compared dierent cities, countries andcontinents. For example, applications are mostly inaccordance with central government policies inEngland, whereas local government decisions aremore eective 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 delayedgentrication 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 investments392developers were more eective 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 gentrication from its rstappearance to the present (Hill, 1994; Dorling,1995; Lees, 1996). Gentrication 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 gentrication (Atkinson,2000). For example, some are reacting against gen-trication in the centers of developed countries.People who react against gentrication are organiz-ing to obstruct the process. People sometimes go tocourt for their rights or sometimes struggle withthe gentrication process on the streets. To avoidthese responses, public participation is needed dur-ing rehabilitation applications. Attempts are inten-sied to preserve the original characteristics of thesettlement, its ethnic dierentiation, its small-scalebusinesses and aordable rent values.This research has indicated that gentrication

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 gentricationprocess, 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 rststage of gentrication; the appearance of artists inthese areas has led to the introduction of galleries,coee houses, rock clubs, and this night life hasattracted gentriers to the area as well.In this study, the gentrication process and its

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

Geographical patterns of gentrication in tlements had begun to develop at quite a pace

Gentrication in Istanbul: N ErgunFigure 1 Gentrication areas of IstanbulIstanbul

The process of gentrication in Istanbul rstbegan 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-trication dier (Figure 1).

Gentrication of the Bosphorus neighborhoods

The Bosphorus villages, which until the secondhalf of the 15th century earned their living fromagriculture and shing, 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-

beginning at Ortakoy on the European side ofIstanbul (Kuban, 1996).Throughout its history, the Bosphorus has

always reected the social, economic and culturalcharacteristics of its location. In the villages liveshermen and farmers, seasonal palaces and gar-dens are home to a wealthier management classand in the less intensive settlement areas live dier-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 citys increasing trac pro-blems and the resulting pollution. Following theBosphorus law of 1983, buildings that mightincrease the residential density were restricted.393

Kuzguncuk Uzun (2001) states that this conscious gentrica-

with 100 people and then it was decided to pre-

Gentrication in Istanbul: N ErgunThe rst process of gentrication in Istanbul wasobserved in Kuzguncuk in the 1980s on the Asianside of the Bosphorus, chosen for its naturalbeauty and historical signicance. 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 rst 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 gentricationthrough 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 rst gentriers of Istanbul) hasreached 50 households. The interest shown for thisancient Bosphorus village increased in step with theprocess of gentrication, resulting in an increase inthe price of land and property. The square meterprice of the building sites in the streets where gen-trication process occurred has grown six timesbetween 1998 and 2002 (http://www.ymm.net).394serve the traditional characteristics of Ortakoy andprojects were prepared for buildings that would berenovated or restored. Some special dierent colorswere determined for existing and new buildings,but the implementation has been unsuccessful, andsome especially old buildings could not be pre-served (Aklan, 2003).tion of the neighborhood has not had any of theusual adverse eects such as the removal of its for-mer residents because the rst 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-

trication 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 dierent cultures and dierent 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 gentricationprocess 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 face

Gentrication in Istanbul: N ErgunAt the beginning of 1(Bilge-Erkan Mestci) openarea; and soon other artiwere set-up in the village odicrafts and antiques (Katime, however, the squarestreet venders selling fastganized in 1992 as part ofject started for Ortaksurroundings in 1989. T

Figure 2 Views of gentricationy to the above-mentionedting one of the Ortakoys92).e subject to gentricationn a small base area, 23rties with historical valuethe square were generallyncome group while othersis period, drawings of thenotice of protection were980s, two local artistsed an art gallery in thissts followed suite. Stallsn weekends to sell han-rduz, 2002). After somebecame over-run with

food. Ortakoy was reor-a local municipality pro-oy Square and itshe signicance of the

square lies in its proximitstructures, each representhree religions (Isozen, 19The buildings that wer

in Ortakoy are mostly ostorey houses. The propeand a sea view aroundpurchased by the higher-iwere used by artists. In thbuildings given a special

in Kuzguncuk395

prepared and the square was reorganized once

from local businesses. The increasing trac

Gentrication of the Beyoglu neighborhoods

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergunthrough the village also created a parking problemand led to a wider transportation problem formany other settlements further down theBosphorus. After some time, the gentriers thathad renovated the historical houses around thesquare became increasingly dissatised by the newrecreational function the village had assumed. Thesquare meter price of the building sites in the Orta-koy Square and around where the gentricationprocess 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 trac jams. The shop owners in the Squareattacked the new Head of Municipality for lack ofattention to Ortakoy (Tans, 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 familyarchitects of Dolma-bahce Palacein 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).

Gentrication of Istanbuls old city center

The old city center of Istanbul comprises twosettlements on the two sides of Golden Horn,which dier 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).again, the urban furniture was renewed and restau-rants and cafeterias established. The square and itssurrounding area made for a lively atmospherewith art galleries, coee houses, bars and restau-rants, handicrafts and an antique bazaar. However,a couple of years after the reorganization ofOrtakoy Square, bars, taverns and discothe`quesbegan to dominate as the potential for substantialprots encouraged a more aggressive approach396Beyoglu is one of the most distinctive residentialand 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 Crac, 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 Crac,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 populationprole, 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 coee 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 satised the demand for cheap resi-dential property for the new migrants. The abovecombination of factors led to a signicant changein the complexion of the area.The neighborhood, comprising the rst 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 rst oorof 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

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergunold apartments, and as a rtaurants, bookshops and alocally. New life was obsermost obviously with the obul Film Festival.Beyoglu, which incorp

buildings of the late 19thidentied as an architecturas Istiklal Street being a cwas reinvigorated once mactivities enjoyed by the yo

TunelTunel is a prime exampl

trication in Istanbul. Locof the Istiklal Street, it isGermans, Italians, Russiantraded together with Turkarea boasting a rich cultutransformed the district, cl

Figure 3 Views of gentricationtrading center. However,lost after the migration ofnd the Greek professionalof the city (Eldem, 1992;rt lost its signicance andrged elsewhere, the neigh-adversely and the areailapidation.ed to trac in 1990, andunel was badly aected.pped, the rental value ofeclined. Tunel became aut started to change bywhich opened in 1994.gallery (Ugur Bekdemir)d there was only one artistbut he did not only openworked to organizing it.criminals from the neigh-d to call his friends here.esult new cafeterias, res-rt galleries were openedved in Beyoglu, manifestrganization of the Istan-

orated many historicalearly 20th century, wasal site in 1994. As wellenter for trade, the areaore with the cultural

ung generation.

e of the process of gen-ated at the southern enda neighborhood wheres, and Greeks lived ands until the1970s, and anral diversity. The Jewsose both to the port and

the railway station, into athe cultural diversity wasmany Jewish tradesmen aclasses from this quarterInalck, 1996). As the ponew residential areas emeborhood was aectedexperienced widespread dIstiklal Street was clos

the commercial life of TWhen commercial life stoproperties in Beyoglu dcriminal area in time bmeans of an art galleryWhen the owner of thecame to the neighborhoo(Muzaer Akyol) there,an art gallery but alsoFirst, he tried to cleanborhood, and then starte

in Ortakoy397

He organized more than 200 exhibitions here location. Uzun (2000) states that gentrication

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergunwithin 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,coee 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 gentrication.

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 resbetween 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 attractive398began in Cihangir after an artist couple (Beril-Oktay Anlanmert) 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 Beautication of Cihangir(ABC), the renovation of the area was organizedfor the rst 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 prole 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 dened 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 theRepublic 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 100120 m2. unfurnishedapartments 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 dierent 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 nancial world of thatperiod (Kazgan, 1991). Opening up to western

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Erguntrade 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(Akn, 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 prole 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 rst place to halt themigration from the east and southeast (Kazanc,2002). The withdrawal of the nancial sector fromthis area had a great eect on the commercial lifeof Galata. The most important two commercialaxes of the former Galata are now lled with out-lets selling electrical goods.The majority of the residents in Galata today are

migrants. According to Islam (2002), Galata wasaected by the nearby renovations and as a resultthe rst eects of gentrication 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 Galatas artistic community, only a few otherprofessionals moved to the area to live. But thereal inuence of the gentriers occurred after 1995.According to a survey conducted by Islam (ibid.),only 17.3% of the gentriers moved to the areabefore 1995, but the gure rises to 60.8% duringthe last four years. The professionalsacademi-cians, architects, journalists, caricaturists, lmdirectorbought 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 coeehouse. A lot of coee 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 gentrication in Cihangir399

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergun400down 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$ 8001000 in Galata (http://www.em-lakpusulasi.com) Figure 5.

Gentrication 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 dierent 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

coasts. When the Sultans residence moved fromTopkap to Dolmabahce in 1856, the historicalpeninsula lost its signicance. In this period, indus-try caused major modications 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 adverselyaected 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 nancial support with NGO fund-

Figure 5 Views of gentrication in Galata

ing. The project aims not only to carry out physi- houses with many children. One of these measures is

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Erguncal 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 signicantbecause 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 signicance 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 res 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 Balats interior (Akn,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 aected (Yalcn, 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. TheFener-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 districts cultural heritage. The projectwill see 200 historical buildings refurbished andrestored to provide residents with decent accom-modation. Basic infrastructuresuch as betterdrainage for rainwater runo, the provision ofgas for cooking and heating, electricity and gar-bage collectionwill 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 3540 m2to maintain the low rents during the next ve yearswith agreements between landlords and the projectauthorities. But there is no denition 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 benetfrom 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 810 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 gentriers,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 oors 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

Gentrication in Istanbul: N ErgunConclusions

Throughout its history,

capital of empires and a

modated many dierent n

century, several economic

ments have resulted in som

Figure 6 Views of gentrication

402s, or moving to new resi-

f the Turkish Republic inn of Ankara as the capitalt had been established inring Ottoman period leftIstanbul has been the

place which has accom-

ationalities. In the last

and political develop-

e minorities migrating,

mainly to other countriedential areas in Istanbul.

. After the foundation o1923 and the designatiocity, the embassies thaIstanbul to serve du

in Balat

Istanbul for the new capital. As the embassies individual attempts, then following the increase in

continue the projects.

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergunleft, many of those associated with them left too.. The newly founded State of Israel in 1948 led to

many Jews abandoning Istanbul.. Some Muslims, Jews, Greeks and Armenians

from 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 gentrication. 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 gentrica-tion began after the 1980s. Every neighborhood inwhich the process of gentrication is taking place isaected by the process in a dierent way, accordingto its physical location and social composition. Thefollowing results can be seen in the gentricationprocess of Istanbul:

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

. Following the process of gentrication, 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 gentriedarea either reacted (Ortakoy) or adopted the gen-triers and participated in the improvement ofthe area (Kuzguncuk, Cihangir).

. There was no direct impact from governmentsand municipalities in the process of gentrication,excluding Balat. The indirect eect 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, gentrication processes started with. The gentrication 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 gentrication (Kuzguncuk,Cihangir, Tunel, Galata). And in some examples(Balat), the area is at the beginning of therehabilitation process but it is supposed that theneighborhoods residents will change after com-pletion of the projects implementation.

It can be seen then that the gentrication processin Istanbul is following a similar pattern to exam-ples in other countries. However, it has dierencesin some aspects. The rst one is that the gentrica-tion process has started later when compared withthe other countries, because Turkeys economy hasshown a major development only after the 1980sand the inner city areas were in decay until then.The gentrication 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. Andnally, gentrication 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 aected where gentri-cation has taken place in Istanbul.

References

Akn, 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 Bakanlg ve TarihVakf, Istanbul, pp. 12.

Akn, N (1998) 19. Yuzyln Ikinci Yarsnda Galata ve PeraIstanbul. (Galata and Pera in the Second Half of the Nine-teenth Century), (Istanbul).

Akbulut, Y (2003) Halicin Evleri Yenilenirken Halk da Yenilenecekmi (Will the People also be Renovated While Golden HornHouses are being Renovated). 18 Mays 2003, Aksam Gazetesi.buildings prices and rents, some small-scaleentrepreneurs bought, restored and sold or rentedsome historical buildings. People tried to controlgentrication process via associations, except inOrtakoy.

. Municipality elections also aected the gentrica-tion process. The failure of gentrication 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 to403

Aklan, E (2003) Ortadaki Koy; Ortakoy, Duslerin Parlayp Son-dugu Bir Yer (The Village in the Middle; Ortakoy, A Place

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

Gentrication in Istanbul: N ErgunWhere the Dreams Shine and Extinct). 4. Boyut aIletisimToplum Kultur Dergisi, I.U. Say: 3.

Armutcuoglu, F (1985) Istiklal Caddesindeki Pasajlarn Canlandr-lmas ve Ulasm Cozumleri. (Revitalization of Passages on theIstiklal Street and Transportation Solutions), ITU, SosyalBilimler Enstitusu.

Atkinson, R (2000) The hidden costs of gentrication: displace-ment in Central London. Journal of Housing and the BuiltEnvironment 15, 307326.

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

Bektas, C (1992) Kuzguncuk. Istanbul 2, 8796.Bektas, C (1996) Hosgorunun Oteki Ad: Kuzguncuk. (The Other

Name of Tolerance: Kuzguncuk), Tasarm Yayn Gurubu,Istanbul.

Bondi, L (1999) Gender, class, and gentrication: enriching thedebate. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(3),261282.

Carpenter, J and Lees, L (1995) Gentrication in London, NewYork and Paris: an international comparison. InternationalJournal of Urban Regional Research 19, 286303.

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

Celik, Z (1998) 19.yyda Osmanl Baskenti: Degisen Istanbul.(Ottoman Empire in Nineteenth Century: Changing Istanbul),Tarih Vakf.

Deleon, J (1997) Balat ve Cevresi, Istanbulun 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, 353378.

Dokmeci, V and Berkoz, L (1994) Transformation of Istanbulfrom a monocentric to a polycentric city. European PlanningStudies 2, 193205.

Dokmeci, V and Crac, H (1987) Beyoglunun Tarihsel Gelisimi.Mimarlk 71, 4247.

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

Dokmeci, V and Crac, H (1999) From Westernization to globaliza-tion: an old district of Istanbul. Planning History 21(3), 1322.

Eldem, E (1992) Galatann Etnik Yaps. Istanbul 1, 5863.European Union Representation of the European Commission to

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

Toronto case study. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 15(4), 553574.

Gelb, J and Lyons, M (1993) A tale of two cities: housing policyand gentrication in London and New York. Journal of UrbanAairs 15, 345366.

Gonen, A (2002) Widespread and diverse neighborhood gentri-cation in Jerusalem. Political Geography 21(5), 727737.

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

Hamnett, C (1984) Gentrication 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 282319. Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hill, E W (1994) Neighborhood reinvestment, service factories andcommercial gentrication: a policy solution that will not work.Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 12, 484489.

Inalck, H (1996) Fatih, Fetih ve Istanbulun Yeniden Insas. InDunya Kenti Istanbul (The Conqueror, the Conquest and theRestructuring of Istanbul). pp. 2238. Turkiye Ekonomik veToplumsal Tarih Vakf Yaynlar.

Islam, T (2002) Gentrifcation in Istanbul: a comparison of dier-ent cases. In: Upward Neighborhood Trajectories: Gentrica-tion in a New Century Conference. (Glasgow, Scotland).404Jones, G A and Varley, A (1999) The reconquest of the historiccenter: urban conservation and gentrication in Puebla,Mexico. Environment and Planning A 31, 15471566.

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

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

Canlandrlabilmeleri Icin Bir Arastrma (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 Bankas A.S, Istanbul.

Koker, O (1997) 67 Eylul Notlar (Notes on the 67 September),Istanbul, 20.

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

Lees, L (1994) Gentrication in London and New York: anAtlantic Gap? Housing Studies 9(2), 199217.

Lees, L (1996) In the pursuit of dierence: representations of gen-trication. Environment and Planning A 28, 453470.

Ley, D (1986) Alternative explanations for inner-city gentrica-tion: a Canadian assessment. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 76(4), 521535.

Ley, D (1992) Gentrication in recession: social change in sixCanadian inner-cities, 19811986. Urban Geography 13(3),230256.

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 Soylulastrma(Regeneration and Gentrication), Domus M. pp. 4649.

Ozkan, F N (2003) Yeni Balatllar (The New Balat People). 4.Boyut Iletisim Toplum Kultur Dergisi, I.U. Say: 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 gentrication. Journal ofAmerican Planners Association 45, 538548.

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

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

Sykora, L (1996) Economic and social restructuring and gentri-cation in Prague. Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Uni-versitatis Comenianae (Geographica) 37, 7181.

Sykora, L (1999) Change in the internal spatial structure of post-Communist Prague. GeoJournal 49, 7989.

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

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

Tekeli, I (1992) 19. yuzylda Istanbul Metropoliten AlannnDonusumu. In Modernlesme Surecinde Osmanl Kentleri(Transformation of Istanbul Metropolitan Area in the 19thCentury). (eds.) P Dumont, F Georgeon, Tarih ve Yurt Yayn-lar, Istanbul.

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

Usdiken, B (1991) Beyoglunun 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 Kuzguncukta Sosyal ve Mekansal Yenilenme(New Housing Pattern in the Old City: Gentrication inCihangir and Kuzguncuk). Istanbul 35, 5461.

Uzun, C N (2001) Gentrication 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, Say: 2002/1, 3744.

Van Kempen, R and Van Weesep, J (1994) Gentrication and theurban poor: urban restructuring and housing policy inUtrecht. Urban Studies 31, 10431056.

Ward, P M (1993) The Latin American Inner City: dierences ofdegree or of kind? Environment and Planning A 25, 11311160.

White, P and Winchester, HPM (1991) The poor in the inner city:stability and change in two Parisian neighborhoods. UrbanGeography 12, 3554.

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

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

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

pp. 4854. Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih VakfYaynlar.

http://www.adresdergi.com.tr (2001) Istanbulda 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 Yaplms

Olan Bir Soylesi (An Interview with Ugur Bekdemir), Kasm2002.

http://www.x-ist.com (2003) Ortakoyde 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 yllarnda xIstanbul Defterdarlg 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).

Gentrication in Istanbul: N Ergun405

Gentrification in IstanbulIntroductionGeographical patterns of gentrification in IstanbulGentrification of the Bosphorus neighborhoodsKuzguncukOrtakoy

Gentrification of Istanbuls old city centerGentrification of the Beyog˘lu neighborhoodsTunelCihangirGalataGentrification of historical peninsula neighborhoodsBalat

ConclusionsReferences