URBAN INFILL IN THE TARLABAŞI-DOLAPDERE-FERIKÖY AXIS IN ISTANBUL AN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN STUDIO

E U R A U 2 0 1 4 I C O M P O S I T E C I T I ES I N o v e m b e r 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 , I I s t a n b u l - Tu r ke y

URBAN INFILL IN THE TARLABAŞI-DOLAPDERE-FERIKÖY AXIS IN ISTANBUL AN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN STUDIO

FOR THE “EURAU 2014: COMPOSITE CITIES’

İpek Akpınar1, Şebnem Şoher2

1: Department of Architecture Istanbul Technical University

University, 34743, Beyoğlu / İstanbul / Türkiye e-mail: [email protected] ,

2: Department of Architecture Istanbul Technical University

University, 34743, Beyoğlu / İstanbul / Türkiye e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Istanbul has become a ‘theatrical stage’ for a radical social and economic change through the populist policies welcoming the multi-national investments and their spatialization with upscale architectural vocabulary. The decade is characterized by destruction, eviction of urban poor, restless rapidity combined with the accumulation of global capital. The so-called urban transformation projects in the urban center bring about a transformation that is intertwined with the social networks, economic and cultural dynamics and that is rapidly gentrified and gentrifying via the integration with the industry of culture. The city has witnessed a process accompanied by the emergence of social, cultural, economic and spatial segregation. The micro intervention decisions create new borders, new enclosures and new thresholds on macro level.

In this framework, Dolapdere and its surrounding neighbourhoods such as Harbiye, Tarlabaşı and Feriköy in the urban center exemplify the representation of the above mentioned urban transformation. Whereas Tarlabaşı urban regeneration project has resulted w ith the eviction of the inhabitants of mostly low-income, immigrant groups; in Feriköy, larger plots of former industrial facilities are now occupied by residential highrises, introducing a new and fragmented urban grammar to the neighbourhood. Following discussions and productions, conducted in a 7-week summer design studio in 2011, this paper focuses on hybrid nature of the urban environment and how the intolerance of the governance regime to ambiguities affect on it. Couple of the main questions asked are: What kind of hybrid organizations are being generated in the above mentioned, contemporary urban conditions? What is the role of cultural institutions, civil initiatives and bottom-up interventions in the context of Istanbul? Finally, how far can school projects proceed in comprehending the contemporary issues and provide a medium for discussing these issues?

Keywords: experimental architectural design studio, urban theory, urban segregation, professional

ethics, infill

İpek Akpınar1, Şebnem Şoher

2

2

INTRODUCTION

In the first decade of the 21st Century, a new discussion of spatiality emerged. In terms of architectural and urban projects in Istanbul, the decade has been signified by the ‘visibility of projects’. ‘Spatiality’ (the making ‘visible’ of the space of the city of Istanbul to its inhabitants and to the World) has emerged as the ideological approach of urban modernization, in which the cultural richness of social and physical structure has been ignored. The public integrity that was giving an ideological meaning to the modern city of the 20th century is in the process of disintegration; surrounded by consumption culture, urban integration of the city has been fragmented. With hygienic atmosphere created by up-scale architectural vocabulary, the city has witnessed privatization of public space as well as public buildings and segregated museumification process accompanied by the emergence of social, cultural, economic and spatial segregation process (Keyder, 2005; Kurtuluş, 2005; Geniş, 2006; Kuyucu, 2009). It is thus possible to speak of the “global Istanbul Project” and the physicalization of the neo-liberal policies. The speculative, and ideologically connotative project creation processes are characterized by ad-hoc spontaneous and fragmented decisions made with no discussions in an opaque environment. In this framework, Dolapdere-Harbiye-Tarlabaşı-Feriköy axis represents the above mentioned capitalistic urbanization. Whereas Tarlabaşı urban regeneration project led by two real estate development and construction companies and Beyoğlu Municipality has resulted with the eviction of the inhabitants of mostly low-income, immigrant groups; in Feriköy, larger plots of former industrial facilities are now occupied by residential high-rises, introducing a new and fragmented urban grammar to the neighbourhood. Isn’t it possible anymore to find a hybrid and heterotopic space left for the others? Is it possible to reconceptualize of architecture and urbanism in Istanbul-Turkey? Can memories of place and practices of everyday life contribute to take a positioning in the architectural design education? To what extent architecture and its education can respond to contemporary urban issues in the globalizing city? How can the knowledge from other disciplines help in establishing new positions of architects as intervenors?

In the light of capitalistic urbanization process, our paper questions whether it is possible to re-think architectural education and look for a new approach in the place-making. Focusing on the discussions and works produced in an 7-week summer design studio with a subject of intervening into a patchwork of disintegrated urban patterns and reconnecting them with proposals of building programs - acting as mediators amongst different communities, relations between architecture and urbanization have been revealed. The aim of the architectural studio is to develop a critical perspective of intervening the urban context and to rethink possible roles of both the educator and the student of architecture as a prospective architect. In other words, the studio aimed at the setting up a broader understanding the chaotic built environment; and to question how to comprehend, represent and respond to it as a future architect, future citizen and intellectual of the society. Following a conceptual introduction, our study goes back and forth between the making of a milieu in the design studio, contemporary urban context and urban theory for the setting up a holistic new approach in architectural design education. It may give a broader understanding of the architectural arena, education and the production of space in Istanbul, and in Turkey in general.

This is part of an on-going study, and any conclusion is provisional.

URBAN CONTEXT

Entering the 20th Century as an imperial city that was a capital for three empires, Istanbul, once more, emerges in the world arena as a “global city” - one of the cities linking leading regional economies to


2

the world economy (Öncü and Weiland, 1997). In contemporary Istanbul, we are witnessing an intense economic, social, cultural and spatial transition to a different platform. On the one hand, in the globalizing period, it is possible to read the dynamics of Istanbul through Castells' (1989) notion on the ‘space of flows’. Urban and social mobility reflecting the flow, the transfer and share of knowledge, information, and people, have been primary dynamics of globalizing Istanbul. The contemporary urban change possesses its local characteristics. Istanbul, a 8,500 old imperial city has become a ‘theatrical stage’ for a radical social and economic change through the populist policies welcoming the multi-national investments and their spatialization with up-scale architectural vocabulary. On the other hand, the urban growth has expanded towards eastern and western directions as well as towards the North, threatening forest areas and natural sources; and, the urban center has become more concentrated. However, it must be pointed out that similarities are present with the ones that Sao Paolo, Dubai and Shanghai. Within the emergence of the new global politics and economics (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982; Sassen, 1991), the municipal and governmental programmes of Istanbul may be seen as a ‘marketing strategy’ for attracting foreign investment and tourists, reminiscent of David Harvey’s (1997:27) reading of “through imagery and massive architectural projects, even entire cities and metropolitan areas may be served up as market objects and all - encompassing spectacles”. His comparison of the late 1990s is also valid for the economic and social mentality of the Turkish context in the third millennium. Very similarly, in the dominant global context on Istanbul, a fragmented “urban collage” - physicalized through its pluralist identity, or as a “mélange” – as pronounced by Uğur Tanyeli - has emerged as main local aspect.1 Through the dynamic globalizing process that Tansel Korkmaz (2010) names “pressure of the global”, the overlapping of the services with the development of finance and technology sectors along with the industry of culture brings out a social and economic dissociation. Imports that were prioritized through neo-liberal policies as well as land and real-estate speculations dominated the economy (Keyder and Öncü, 1994). And, on 14 February 2005, Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan has declared his mission: “My prime duty is to sell the city”.

In this context, tourism, in particular, has been a means to demonstrate to the world the economic, technological and physical as well as conservative/Islamic power change in the social context of Istanbul. In this regard, the making of Istanbul for the ‘dialogue of civilizations’ between the West and the Islamic countries has dominated the discourse (at least until the Gezi Events in May-June 2013). Researchers who depict Istanbul as a “show city” enclosed by a consumption culture, believe that the integrity of the city is slowly being fragmented, ‘islandization’ as well as ‘museumification’ is occurring, and that the process is excluding certain social classes (Kurtuluş, 2005; Bartu Candan and Kolluoğlu, 2009 and 2010; Öncü, 2010). Today, in the architectural and urban arenas, “beautifying Istanbul and glorifying its Ottoman past” have become the main mottos. The making the car traffic flow like water and getting rid of the ugliness have become a national concern across Turkey, and Istanbul is no exception – reminiscent of the premiership of Adnan Menderes in the 1950s. Visualized by the so-called urban transformation, the decade is characterized by destruction, eviction of urban poor, restless rapidity combined with the accumulation of global capital. In the 21st Century, with all governmental and municipal support, Istanbul is undergoing a radical spatial and social change. In the framework, the so-called urban transformation projects in the central city of Istanbul bring about a transformation that is intertwined with the social networks, economic and cultural dynamics and that is rapidly gentrified and gentrifying via the integration with the industry of culture. In this regard,

1 Tanyeli’s serial lectures as an invited lecturer at ITU, Architectural Design Theory master course.


2

4

multi-use complexes (residential towers, offices and shopping malls) located into globalized cores physicalized emerging ‘social distinction’. In recent researches on Istanbul, emphasis is given more and more on the uneven allocation of urban resources, the increase in the urban poverty and spatialization. In this process, wealth is becoming polarized; life, work and recreational areas are separated according to social, economic and spatiality. In other words, economic, social and political changes along with the bombardment of globalization have brought the emergence of ‘social exclusion’ with a possible danger of social polarization in the fragmented Istanbul – indicating growing inequalities between the two poles of the social spectrum. In the period of the ‘tourist gaze’, once Istanbul opens up, distinctions of those who can be part of globalization and who cannot have become dramatically obvious: social income groups are segregated in terms of incomes, spaces of residence, cultures of consumption and practices of everyday life, as pronounced by Keyder (1999; 2005; 2010).2 Keyder’s description of the urban and architectural transformation scenarios in Istanbul points to the fact that new models of wealth and poverty are rising in the city.

In this radical urban change, Tarlabaşı-Harbiye-Feriköy axis has been chosen as our focus area in the architectural design studio. Centrally located, neighbourhoods are socially and physically re-shaped under intensifying capitalistic urban policies (Kuyucu and Ünsal, 2010). Simultaneous with the studio period, Tarlabaşı, was the subject of an urban regeneration threat, which is in the process of realization by private development and construction companies and local municipality. Feriköy has been facing a partial transformation of former industrial areas into gated residences and Harbiye, an old neighbourhood in-between, confronting a demographical change through immigration and replacement of small-scale production spaces with temporary accommodation facilities, such as short term rental apartments and luxurious hotels. Although the history of Tarlabaşı dates further back, all these three areas are physically formed out of small apartments, occupied predominantly as housing. In the mid-19th century, when Beyoğlu district was the center of a European life-style, development of Tarlabaşı neighbourhood also started through modest houses of mostly Levantines, working in the commerce and service sectors or embassy officers (Dinçer, 2009). In Elmadağ-Harbiye district, there were only few buildings, a church, a high school, a nursing home and a hospital of catholic community until the second half of the century. When the tramway was extended from Taksim in Şişli direction and to Kurtuluş neighbourhood, this widely empty area has started to be chosen for settlement (Danış and Kayaalp, 2005:260). Since 1986, one of the great urban development projects, associated with the period’s mayor Dalan, opening of the Tarlabaşı Boulevard had a dramatic effect on Tarlabaşı and surrounding neighbourhoods. Low-income residents of the area were replaced by lower-income groups, people working in marginal sectors, illegal immigrants, etc. (İşlek and İşlek, 2010). In short, the area was stigmatized with crime (İnceoğlu and Yürekli, 2011:5). Social exclusion and political otherization proceeded in parallel with physical deterioration. The overall discrediting of Beyoğlu district was also related to its repositioning as the heart of Istanbul’s nightlife. At the same time, the fact that Beyoğlu is offering various types of entertainment and housing most of the cultural events evolved into a potential for smaller investors. In the following period, property prices have risen and Beyoğlu has become a subject of interest for bigger investors. As Kuyucu and Ünsal (2010:1480) mentioned, urban transformation projects contribute to “the construction of a neo-liberal regime of governance that no longer tolerates the legal ambiguities and the incompletely

2 In this regard, Nora Şeni (2013) indicates that two radically dis-integrated and ideologically different social groups are

in presence, in particular: the seculars and conservatives. Nora Şeni, conference notes, the Taksim panel, ITU Taşkışla, March 2013.


2

commodified market structure characterizing these areas”. As a result, Tarlabaşı area, until then excluded from the gentrification process of Beyoğlu, encountered an urban transformation project. Dolapdere Boulevard have been experiencing a physical and social alteration, starting from its lower part Irmak Street, bordering Tarlabaşı neighbourhood in the northern direction. Small workshops and auxiliary equipment shops located in Tarlabaşı and Dolapdere region started to be unable to persist (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Tarlabaşı-Dolapdere-Feriköy area with designated project plots


2

6

DESIGN STUDIO AS AN INTELLECTUAL MILIEU: CONFRONTATION WITH THE SEGREGATED BUILT ENVIRONMENT

What makes the course different is the theoretical milieu provided by challenging their curiosity and offering a platform of experience created by critical questioning. Based on interdisciplinary atmosphere and the theoretical framework of discussions, the studio questions the reflection of the design/architectural studio with the architecture and urban theory, and investigates how far the course prepares the young candidates of architecture for the professional life as well as public ethics. The design process consists of a series of complex social-political-cultural issues integrating different ways of seeing and knowing: understanding architecture/urbanism as a narrative and interpreting it through the juxtaposed multi-layered hidden meanings - give rise to construct the “big picture” in the contemporary metropolis. The main approach is to make the young candidates of architecture to discover their own potential and making them aware of dialectic thinking vis-à-vis the built environment and to discover contradictions as well as dynamics and potentials of the metropolitan area.

Surrounded by a series of emerging concepts (diversity, irrationality, plurality, cosmopolitanism, complexity, contradiction, vivacity, meaning, localities, children, women, migrants, ethnic groups, etc.), struggles, contradictions as well as dynamics and potentials of the globalizing city have been physicalized on urban context. On this diversity of the urban context, Colin Rowe and Fred Coetter (1975) argue that cities have been built by incremental fragments. Each fragment has particular characteristics, and has relation with other fragments. Together these fragments create a conceptual framework for our experience of the city as a form of phenomenological, cubist collage in our individual and collective consciousness. Each fragment was a lived world, the product of history, which could be inhabited. The difference is between fragments and their inhabitants made for the diversity and vibrancy of city life. The diversity, richness of the urban experience has been systematically under attack by privatization processes, emergence of luxurious architectural building blocks. Tarlabaşı-Feriköy-Kurtuluş axis exemplifies this.

In this chaotic process, space is not a simple stage of the social relations and activities. Space is an operative aspect in all these relations. In this regard, three basic Lefevbrian notions (space, everyday life and the re-production of the capitalist social relations) have been main axes on our conceptualization of the architectural project in a capitalistic built environment (Lefevbre, 1991; 1996). Growth and expand of the capitalist organization, and, as a result fragmentation of the capitalist organization and urban space and notion of “right to the city” (Harvey, 1998; 2008) had been indicators in the design process of students. Their production of the space has been, thus, based on both on “the practice of professional disciplines (arch-urbanism) and experiences and practices of the everyday life and its discussions. In other words, students were asked to grasp the built environment through complex layers of spatial practices (buildings and activities), spatial representations (theories and figures), and spaces of representation (buildings and experiences). In this framework, discovery of knowledge provided special kind of awareness, social consciousness towards urban segregation and challenges the students’ misconceptions with appropriate questions and evidence, and guide them to develop an urban acupuncture / virus as a hybrid re-formation of the urban and architectural space. In this regard, our design studio aimed at guiding students to perceive design as well as theoretical issues from different perspectives.

Moreover, the presence of students from other disciplines as well as the invitation of professionals from various fields transformed the studio into a milieu. Although creating the desired milieu in the


2

studio started with the introduction of perspectives from different scales of design and different disciplines such as performing arts and photography; the urban context of Istanbul forming an important basis for intellectual interpretation of multi-layered situations, has been the initial point for our studio work.

In the conceptualization of the design studio, the process has been formulated by a few steps of different small scale design problems and a main project. As a tool for creating a communicative environment between tutors and design students, first two weeks were devoted to short-period workshops, where the students were expected to acknowledge body-space, performance-audience, performance-urban space relations, interaction between their own body and architectural space as border, shelter and mediator. In the first meeting hence, they went for a discovery trip to the Taksim Square and Atatürk Cultural Center, which have an intense relationship with each other. This trip was followed by group discussions on façades' potential of being a possibility for meeting the city and establishing a dialogue with the city. Conducted by Boğaçhan Dündaralp and Eylem Erdinç, young professionals, a short workshop has enriched the discussions with a new kind of approach, stemming from their professional experience and complicate the opposing positioning of teacher/student. Small group reviews among two smaller groups under the guidance of two mediators resulted with various façade proposals, discussed further in a final assessment, where every student confronted with jury critiques and other possible ways of approaching the same subject, through other students' proposals. Second task was participating in a one-day-workshop, supervised by Filiz Sızanlı and Mustafa Kaplan, who are professional artists working in the field of modern dance. The workshop was formulating on the discovery of the interrelation of the individuals own body, space and movement. In addition to the fact, that such a group work introduced a new sense of togetherness, it helps the participants to remember that architectural design is strictly related to sensual perception and needs to be worked in many different scales, from urban to human.

In the main axis of the studio, instead of asking what the globalization is, students were encouraged to ask what globalization does, what the rhetoric of globalization is; how it has become dominant; what the context is and theme in the globalization research and design is. The discussions focused on that globalization and capitalistic urbanization are not simply an economic process, but is a political one – buildings permissions, transportation structures, function zones, etc. As stated by Clarke and Gaile (1998:2), their framing and negotiation such opportunity structures for globalization are overwhelmingly local. Similarly, for the local context, Keyder’s readings (1999, 2005, 2010) became our guiding lines. In this sense, our discussions on globalizing dynamics were focused on commodification, society of spectacle, financial and urban segregation and capitalistic urbanism and, of course, their reflections in the making of architectural and urban spaces.

PROJECTS

Following a similar perspective mentioned above, students’ projects questioned the capitalistic urbanization, urban segregation, and responded critically as a candidates of architecture. In other words, projects were developed on a structure based on grasping the complex transformation of the city, the local characteristics of the close environment and the new meanings introduced to the local scale through the bigger transformation. Six projects proposed on 3 different plots in Feriköy, Harbiye and on the border of Tarlabaşı neighbourhood with pedestrianized hotel region of Beyoğlu, Talimhane, have different building programs originating from the location-specific readings; the aim of proposing such programs resemble, which is bringing the local residents close together with


2

8

professionals from different disciplines, who could benefit from the neighbourhood, in a less traumatic manner (Table 1).

Table 1: ITU Faculty of Architecture / 2010-2011 Summer / Architectural Project 5 - 6

Student Projects

Name of the project

Name Plot number Building Program

Urban Memory Center

Elif Baboğlu 2 Open-Space, Library, Archive, Multi-Functional Hall, Exhibition Space, Residence, Café, Open-Kitchen, Offices.

Multi-disciplinary Residency

Taylan Kılıç 2 Open-Space, Tea Garden, Office/Shop, Lounge+Kitchen, Bedrooms, Workspaces

Literature Residency

Gamze Öztürk 4 Bookstore, Open-Space, Café, Mutual Worskspace, Writers' Rooms

Music Recording Workshop

Aslıhan Kerimkar

4 Studio+Bedrooms, Record Booth, Workshop Space, Mutual Kitchen, Performance Space, Open-Spaces

Plastic Arts Residency

Semiha Altıntaş

4 Café, Open Studio, Bedrooms, Mutual Terraces, Mutual Kitchen, Vertical Garden

Organic Farming Research Center

Çiğdem Bayram

5 Applied Education Research Laboratory, Exhibition Spaces, Lounge, Caféteria, Bedrooms

First two design students, working in Tarlabaşı had to confront with the complexity of Taksim Square. Contradictory to each other, first project proposed an urban memory center (Figure 2), whereas the second combined flexible work and exhibition spaces for various possible disciplines under a single roof (Figure 3). Concentrating on preservation of collective memory or stimulation of further production, these two approaches can be evaluated as two different ways of dealing with many layers

of urban structure.


2

Figure 2: Elif Baboğlu, Urban Memory Center

Figure 3: Taylan Kılıç, Multi-disciplinary Residency

In Harbiye, the building programs mostly focus on a single field, such as literature, music and plastic arts. In a transforming but relatively calm neighbourhood, students chose to create spaces for artist residencies, mutual studio spaces for long- and short-term visitors and performance, exhibition and recreational spaces for public usage, thus for open-ended participations/encounters (Figure 4, 5, 6).

Figure 4: Gamze Öztürk, Literature Residency


2

10

Figure 5: Aslıhan Kerimkar, Music RecordingWorkshop

Figure 6: Semiha Altıntaş, Plastic Arts Residency

On the plot in Feriköy, the organic farmers’ market, which is an important social and economic generator for the neighbourhood was re-evaluated and interpreted as an application, research and information center for organic farming. The existing market, which have been acting as a mediator between manufacturers and consumers and raising awareness was brought a step further, including also a small-scale production in the urban environment with an aim of introducing a new knowledge to the urban dwellers (Figure 7).


2

Figure 7: Çiğdem Bayram, Organic Farming Research Center

Since the mid-1980s, radical economic, social and political changes along with the bombardment of globalization have brought the emergence of ‘social exclusion’ in Istanbul. And to tell the story of globalization and post-globalization of Istanbul is not as simple as it might seem. To set up an architectural design studio to confront the contradictions of globalizing dynamics is a critical arena.

- The Project period is 7 weeks has created a dynamic process.

- Short and experimental design-puzzles at the initial level set up a milieu in the design studio.

- Students from different departments and participation of different professional create an inter-disciplinary as well as multi-cultural platform.

- Architectural object has shifted into something else; the building and the plot are not enough to focus any more. Contextual layers are off primary importance.

- Integration of contemporary critical urban theory, unveiling urban segregation processes indicate contradictions and dynamics of the urban context.

- Grasping the built environment and questioning segregation pave way for not only the development of social consciousness, but also the constitution of professional ethics in the young professionals and citizens.

Since the principal accounts of the process are rapidly changing, our study on design studio is still far from being complete. While this present study contributes to tell the story of the emerging issues as well as social contradictions reflecting into the architectural design studio, its findings occur within a debate that is rapidly developing at the present, and in which all conclusions appear provisional.

REFERENCES

Bartu Candan, A. And Kolluoğlu, B. 2000’ler İstanbul’unda Mekân Siyaseti, In Ç. Keyder, ed., Küresellleşen İstanbul’da Ekonomi, Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi. 53-60, 2010.

Bartu Candan, A., Kolluoğlu, B. ‘Kentsel Değişim sürecinde Yer değiştiren Yoksulluk’, Osmanlı Bankası

Voyvoda Konferansları. 11.02.2009. www.obarsiv.com/e_voyvoda_0809.html, 2009

http://www.obarsiv.com/e_voyvoda_0809.html


2

12

Castells, M. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process., 1989.

Castells, M. The City and the Grass Root. London: Edward Arnold, 1983.

Clarke, S.E. And Gaile,G.L. The Work of Cities, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Daniş, D., Kayaalp, E. Bir Bağlamlandırma Denemesi: Elmadağ'da Göçmenlik Deneyimleri, Kurtuluş, H. (ed.) İstanbul'da Kentsel Ayrışma, Bağlam Yayınları, pp.287-306, 2005.

Dİnçer, İ. Kentsel koruma ve yenileme sorunlarını örnekler üzerinden tartışmak: Süleymaniye ve

Tarlabaşı. http://www.planlama.org/index.php/planlamaorg-yazlar6/planlamaorg-yazlar/66-planlamaorg-yazlar/doc-dr-clal-dincer/325-kentsel-koruma-ve-yenileme-sorunlarn-oernekler-uezerinden-tartmak-sueleymaniye-ve-tarlaba-4, 2009a.

Friedmann,J., Wolff, G. World City Formation: an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6.3, pp.309-343, 1982.

Genİş, Ş. 'İstanbul’da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar', Hatice Kurtuluş (ed.),

European Journal of Turkish Studies, Book reviews, URL : http://www.ejts.org/document580.html, 2006.

Harvey, D., The Right To The City. New Left Review no: 53, September - November, London, 2008.

Harvey, D. The Social Justice and the City. London: Blackwell, 1998.

Harvey, D. “Contested Cities: Social Process and Social Form,” Transforming Cities, Nick Jewson and Susanne MacGregor, eds. London: Routledge, pp.19-27, 1997.

Inceoglu, A., & Yureklİ, I. Urban transformation in Istanbul: potentials for a better city. In Proceedings of Enhr Conference 2011 (pp. 5-8).yenileme-sorunlarini-ornekler-uzerinden-tartismak-suleymaniye-ve-tarlabasi.html, 2011.

İşlek, E., Akpinar, İ.Y., ‘The Rebuilding of Istanbul Through Contradictions: The Tarlabaşı Case’, 14th IPHS ınternational Planning History Society conference, ‘Urban Transformation, controversieis, contrasts, and challenges’, 12-15 July 2010, ITU, Istanbul, 2010.

Keyder, Ç. Küreselleşen İstanbul’da Ekonomi, In Ç. Keyder, ed., Küresellleşen İstanbul’da Ekonomi, Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi. s.7-11, 2010.

Keyder, Ç. Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (1), 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00574.x Volume 29 Issue 1 Page 124-134, March 2005.

Keyder, Ç., Istanbul, between the Global and the Local. London: Rowman & Littlefield pub., 1999.

Keyder, C. And Oncu, A., Globalization of a third-world metropolis: Istanbul in the 1980s. Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center 17.3, 383–421, 1994.

Korkmaz, T., 1983-1910, Küreselin Basıncı, In I. Bilgin, et al, eds. İstanbul 1910-2010, Kent, Yapılı Çevre ve Mimarlık Kültür sergisi kataloğu. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010.

Kurtuluş, H. ed., İstanbul’da Kentsel Ayrışma. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2005.

Kuyucu, T. & Ünsal, Ö. “Urban Transformation' as State-led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two

http://www.planlama.org/index.php/planlamaorg-yazlar6/planlamaorg-yazlar/66-planlamaorg-yazlar/doc-dr-clal-dincer/325-kentsel-koruma-ve-yenileme-sorunlarn-oernekler-uezerinden-tartmak-sueleymaniye-ve-tarlaba-4



http://www.ejts.org/document580.html


2

Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul”, Urban Studies, No.47, pp.1479–1499, 2010.

Kuyucu, T., Ünsal, Ö. “Challenging the Neo-Liberal Urban Regime: Regeneration and Resistance in Başıbüyük and Tarlabaşı”, in Göktürk, D., Soysal, L., and Türeli, I. eds. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?. London: Routledge, 51-70, 2010.

Kuyucu, T. Poverty, Property and Power: Making Markets in İstanbul’s Informal Low Income Settlements, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle WA, 2009.

Lefebvre, H., Writings on Cities. Ed. Kofman, Lebas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.

Rowe, C., & Koetter, F., Collage city. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1975.

Öncü, A. ‘Küresel Ölçekli Bir Mobilite Rejimine Doğru’, In Ç. Keyder, ed., Küresellleşen İstanbul’da Ekonomi, Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi. 20-24, 2010.

Öncü, A. and WEILAND, P. Eds. Space, Culture and Power. London: Zed Books, 1997.

Sassen, S.The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Şenİ, N., Conference Notes, The Taksim Panel, ITU Taşkışla, 2013.

İpek Akpınar

Dr. Akpınar is lecturing at the architectural and urban design studios, master and phd courses on the relations of architecture with the urban, political and cultural context at ITU.

Şebnem Şoher

Şebnem Şoher is a PhD candidate, working as a teaching assistant in ITU, Faculty of Architecture. Her interest areas include modernism and transformation of user-physical environment relationships in the changing urban context.

URBAN INFILL IN THE TARLABAŞI-DOLAPDERE-FERIKÖY AXIS IN ISTANBUL AN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN STUDIO

Documents