RESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING... REALIGNMENT OF ISTANBUL Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins This profile of Istanbul explores recent devefop- monts that bear on cultural policy and cultural regulation in the city. Istanbul is a rapidly develop ing metropolis seeking to position itset in the con text of the world system of ‘global cies’. As with all such cities, neoliberal dynamics hold sway. The ‘authors analyze the new dynamics in one particu- lar municipal, Boyodi, located at the very heart of the city, whose cultural, leisure and historical composition make it central fo the developments that have brought such slogans as ‘coo! Istanbul! into circulation. They focus on the strategies the Municipal, run by the conservative and rel- igiously-oriented Justice and Development Party (AKP), has adopted to deal with urban cultural policy issues. By uncovering the contradictory dyn- ‘mics in play, they argue that the process of change is strongly associated with a weakening of local democracy. Introduction “Tho atmosphere of a city is simply the way that tte takes place In it (BOhme 2006: 132). A productive metaphor: the atmosphere of a city, the changing aimosphere of an urban culture, Atmospheres. are phenomena that we commonly ~ and spontaneously, inescapably even associate with our experince ot ‘place, or ofa situation, or an encountet. You sense ‘an atmosphere, on, the’ one hand, says. Gernot 'BUhme, ‘only by way of your own feelings, and yet, a the same time, as what emanates from another per son, from objects, or from the environment’ (2008: 132). Atmospheres concern the everyday lived rela tion to one’s surroundings, and they translate into the complex array of moods, tones of feeling, emotions ~ and also mindful awareness ~ associated with this always ongoing situated and implicated relation ‘Atmospheres are ‘aective powers of feeling, spatial bearers of moods’ (Bohme 1998: 119). In an impor. tant sense, one knows the city by way of the moods that it evokes, through an ‘anareness of mi state of boing in an environmant, how fee here’ (1993: 120, Strange as it may seer, we want to argue that urban ‘governance can only work effectively when it entals ‘an awareness of how policy-making fs, as much as anything, aboutthe production of atmospheres. Urban democracy can mean very litte without a democrat feolThe qualiy of atmosphere end mood in a city is a key measure of the relative success oF failure of Urban governance initiatives. In the following account, we are concerned with Istanbul. Our focus willbe on recent developments in cultural policy and governance in contemporary lstanbul, and with regard to what s distinctive about these developments. And, since we cannot straight forwardly consider this vast city as a whole to be a unitary of a coherent urban space, our reflections vill be specific, addressing some of the key issues | of urban cultural governance in just one municipa- ly, Beyogu. Through @ detailed discussion of the | ‘newly initiated planning-curn-cultural strategy inthis ‘one part ofthe city — though, no doubt, its cuturally |RESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING... NSTANBUL | 185 tansider tobe problematical in contemporary urban “govemance strategies — seeming to be sympto- rac of what is going on in general in Istanbul. Many recent observers of contemporary urban transformation and of affliated developments in tuban governance have a rather positive scenatio 'p project. Thus, for example, Erik Swyngedouw | (010: 282) writes of what he calls the ‘glocat’ city Intorms of ‘now urban possibilities, involving tha woduction of spaces in which ‘all manner of new luban social and cultural practices emergo, where ‘new forms of urbanity come to life’. What he ~ ‘ney abstractly ~ refers to as the ‘new govern tnonialty, or stakeholder urban governance’ (2010: 218), is sald to Involve emergent ‘institutional or ‘uasi-insttutional arrangements that are organized ashorizontal associational networks of private, civ socily and state actors’ (2010: 220). And s0 on.. Our reading of tho aimosphere and the mood in Istanbul today is quite contrary to what Swyngedouw regards as somehow inherently potential in a pos: ied new urbanity (in the ‘creative city, as itis com- rnonly termed these days). We can see no evident signs of new institutional arrangements, or of asso- cational networks, or of processes of creative enact ment. What we see instead is a city boing ‘renewed? thats atthe samo time a city being diminished. This is in alignment with @ characteristic, and no doubt indispensable, Istanbul uroan narrative. Consider, inter alia the anger ofthe renowned archi- tect Sedat Hakkt Elder (1979: xxx, who, some 30 years ago, judged that istanbul possessed with real value and beauty has long passed’, lamenting ‘the extent ofthe errors and negléct committed atthe present day’ What remains? This is a question that cannot be avoided here; see Aksoy and Robins 2011 Consequenty, there Is now a charged mood in the city ~ an underlying disposition of frustration, of resentment, and of resented fatalism. tt is the disturbed mood of those who are the co-producers oi the city's life - who have been the co-producers of its vitality and its vivid atmospheres ~ as they ‘now find the nature and the terms of the co-pro- duction ever more unequal, uncreative, undesira- ble, and stressful Why Beyoglu? Looking immediately across the Golden Horn to the ‘old city’, the now so-called ‘historic peninsula’ of Istanbul, Beyodiu is at the very heart of the cultural city of Istanbul. In the Ottoman period, ‘and particularly during the nineteenth century when it was known as Pera, Beyotlu was the dis tinctive preserve of the European populations living in the city (French, Germans, Austrians, ttallans, British, etc.) and of non-Muslim Ottoman citizens (Greeks, Armenians, Jews). Effectively it was a city within a city. Along, and in the immedi ate vicinity of, the Grande Rue de Péra, which ran the length of the district, were embassies, hotels, churches and chapels, arcades, markets, thea- ires, stylish cafés and brasseries (‘Strasbourg’, “Viennoise’, ‘Suisse’, ‘Koutoulas’), cabarets, cou- turlers and millinets, jewellers, elegant rest- aurants and patisseries — all reflecting the then contemporary European paradigm of urban sophistication (Naum-Duhani 1847, 1956). The Italian traveller Edmondo De Amicis, who visited Istanbul in 1874, characterized Pera as ‘the ‘West End" of the European colony (he was evoking the West End of London; the cantre of pleasure and elegance’ (2005 (1877: 41). With its thoroughly “European’ character, Pera had the complex atmosphere of a cosmopolitan space — within the Ottoman capital city, it was a space of ethnic, lin- uistic, religious and cultural diversity (Tischler 2006). In the early twentieth century, however, during the period in which the Empire was break- ing up and the new Turkish nation state was being brought into existence ~ and when Pera was con- sequently driven to become monocuttural Turkish- national Beyotiu — this cosmopolitan ethos was forcibly demeaned and diminished. And yet we can say that there always remained a residue of ‘cosmopolitan sensibility, maybe even a certain persistence of cosmopolitan disposition, in Beyogju. And now, as istanbul takes on the imp: ‘osed challenge of re-branding itself as a new- century global city, this cosmopolitan residuum, the cosmopolitan legacy of Peta, has once again become activated, albeit in a different modal- ity, instrumentally, tactically, and nostaigically. ‘Cosmopolitan Beyodju' has become an invaluable image and advertising resource, a newly oxplolt- able symbolic asset in the cause of global-city positioning, solicitation and marketing. And ‘Pera’, with all ofits appreciated, accumulated connota- tions, has become a valued trading brand for local businesses. (And, interestinaly, the real signifi- ‘canca of this cosmopolitan local history has not186 | METROPOLITAN CULTURAL POLITICS, POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE entered the discourses of more critically minded constituencies of interest within the Municipality.) Aspects of cultural governance In addressing questions of cultural governance ‘within its jurisdiction, there are a number of chal- lenges that Beyoiu Municipality has to address, according to an order of priorities that it must estab- lish within the frame ofits strategic initiatives. Fics, there is the question of the rich but decaying historicallegacy, novratthe disposal of the Municipality. ‘The potential for Beyoiju as a distinctive, late-Otto- man heritage zone (quite cistinet from — albeit very close to - Sultanahmet) has recently come to figure highly on the local authority's polcy-cu-enterprise ‘agenda. On the one hand, there s the renewal of what has become a valuable stock of nineteenth-century buildings —buildings that have been re-evaluated, and hhave now come to seem to be worthy of listed status. The urban fabric of Beyodu is characterized by a predominantly neo-classical architectural style (Golik 1986: 133-137), and has many decent, if not classic, examples of Art Nouveau (Batur 2005), And, ‘on the other, and in parallel development, there is, the potential to exploit the image of historic Pera that has now evolved in the form of Pera-nostalgia, ‘The name “Pera” started appearing on a number of shop signs, alongside names reminiscent of Greek, ‘Armenian, Jewish or Levantine inhabitants and bus ness owners of a century earlier’ (Eldem 2006: 23). Both the inherited built environment of Pera, then, and its memorialized Image have become crucial factors to be taken account of in the Municipalty’s new-generation strategies for ity projection, promo- tion and marketing. ‘A second issue that the Municipality has to nego- tiate is also a consequence of the historical legacy of the district, namely its non-Muslim character and lifestyle, which once translated into its distinctive ‘West-End’ ethos. This the ‘non-tangible’ legacy of its fi-de-siécle days of restaurants and beer halls, theatres and music halis — the key aspect of Beyoiju's twenty-first century global-cty posturing, These days, the nightife culture of restaurants, bars and clubs is booming as never before. In ‘August 2005, Newswaeks front cover ran the head {ine ‘Cool Istanbul’, dubbing it'Europe’s hippest city’ (Foroohar and Matthews 2005: 82). And, at the beginning of 2011, the UK Observer newspaper Characterized Istanbul as the:new party capital of Europe’, replete with ‘boutique hotels, fusion eater- ies and world music clubs’ (Finkel 2071). It is this ‘coo! and ‘vibrant’ Beyoglu way of life and lifestyle that most closely, and ‘classically’ corresponds to tho ethos of the by now hegemonic (secular, mat- erilistic, commercial) global-city paradigm, nest ing, we should emphasize, within a city that is also apiouscily. A third issue condems contemporary artistic and cultural creativity, for this is also, in the rapidly transforming Istanbul context, what Boyo$u has ‘come to stand for. Is the locus of a new cultura ferment and inventiveness. In her recent book Istanbul Stadt unter Strom the subtitle is roughly translatable as ‘Electric .Ciy’ — Sibylle Thelen (2008) observes tha, in the recent period, a new generation of artistic and cultural practitioners {from Orhan Pemuk to Nuri Bilge Coyian to El Shafak; from Morcan Dede to Kutiug Ataman of Fatih Akin) has radically transformed the city’s ro: file, and not least in a wider European and interna: tional context (and she is absolutly right to draw altention to the extensive transnational connected: ress of Istanbut's new creative milieu). in creative: altic terms, in terms of the lease of new energies and a newly unleashed ‘creative chaos’ (2008: 13, 16), Beyogju has come to assume a vanguard role inthe oly, Ths is where Istanbul’ latest generation of cultural practitioners is to be found: It is the ais- tlt where artists want to be found, and to be found working. As such, Istanbul: Stadt untor Strom is | effectively, though implicit, a celebration of Beyogiu = the district in the city that most evidently its the bill ag ‘electric city’. But there is far more to the Boyodgu artistic phenomenon than this narrative of individual creative presence tells, The Beyogu ‘arts scene’ is a cultural-business scene, too, and has | ‘4 powerful institutional presence. With their mus eums, art gallorios, research centres, performance spaces, most of the powerful conglomerates of Turkey have their cultural foundations located in Boyoglu: it is here that we find Istanbul Moder, Pera Museum, the Atatdtk Cultural Centre (pres: ently, and controversially, closed for restoration, the Borusan Culture and Arts Centre. Then there are independent enterprises, such as the Babylon | music venue, and many, many smaller and flout ing commercial music halls, performance spaces, and avant-garde venues. And, of course, there has been the major coup of the prestigious award ofRESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING. European Capital of Culture stalus to Istanbul for 1010 — not just a Beyodju achievement, but cer- tahly an achievement that would have beert inoon- cgvable without the cultural resources of Beyotju. & Beyodlu is, by far, Istanbul's major cultural-artistic E essa, with the capacity to generate whatever itis. ‘hala twenty-first century global city has the oblige- tento produce, promote and project. But, t needs ‘bbe stressed that a significant portion of the cul {uel capital of the area accrues from the invest. ment and commitment of private philanthropy and ‘corporate projects of social responsibilty, which by thairvery nature have their own visions and norms. | about aesthetic and artistic work. They are autono- mous players embedded in all kinds of transna- ‘onalnetworks of arts and culture thus commanding huge international following. Their power is such © hal they are able to call the shots in cultural crea- {vty and thus shape Beyodju's image. This takes us to the fourth challenge for cultural > policy, which concerns the question of identity, And this is quite a complicated question, particularly in the Beyodlu contaxt. Two distinct logles are in play. On the one hand, Istanbul has to acknowledge that cone of the requirements of a global city Is t0 be cosmopolitan; tourists demand cosmopolitan expe~ tienoes. And, in the Istanbul context, itis Beyogiu that stands for the cosmopolitan history and culture of the city, On the other hand, there is a certain ‘ficial resistance to such an urban identity, and & desire to construct something more ‘authentically “iurkish for the new Istanbul. This is most appar- ent in the consorvation-cumn-renewal projects. in the historic neighbourhoods, and, in Beyoglu, the Tatlabagi ditrict presently demonstrates most clearly whatis happening. Listed buildings are being targeted to be demolished, to then be replaced by historicat-looking ones. To be replaced, that is to say, by new structures, with fagades remaining intact and the whole interiors modernized. With these urban renewal projects a new style is emerg- ing, which we may call neo-Ottomanism, whereby, through ‘agade retension’ or fagadism’, a newiy- conosived varlant ofthe ‘olds refied and valorized as'more acceptable, and marketable, than the Glapidated but nevertheless living ‘old’ that sur- \ived from Beyogiu’s actual pest. Now ~ our fith point - we come to the most for- midable and, as we will go on to argue, the most decisive aspect of the now urban cultural govern- ance agenda, which is the real-estate side of the swestanBut | 187 cultural economy. Things are in fact more serious ‘and ‘for real’ than the catchy slogans of ‘cool {istanbul or ‘electric city’ allow for, Until quite recently tho Istanbul real-estate boom was taking place in the outlying disticts of the city, with the construction of shopping malls, office buildings, gated. communities and high-tise residential pro- jects. In the recent period, however, we have seen ‘a booming escalation of gentrifcation develop- ments in the core, historic areas of Istanbul, notably in Sultanahmet, Beyodiu and Sig (islam 2010). Land and property prices are soaring (Sotheby's realestate arm, International Realty, is presently ‘buying up property in the Galata district of Beyoglu, until recently a run-down historic neighbourhood). And in this buoyant new economic context, the Beyoglu Municipality has become extremely proactive and entrepreneurial, pursuing the cause ‘of urban renovation, in the name of both gentifica- tion and the promotion of tourism. With the recently approved Beyoglu Conservation Plan, there will be 2 hetty boom in the amount of realestate invest- ment in the district putting pressure on tho cy fabrio, its identty and its socio-economic character. This Is a massive challenge to the Municipality in terms of balancing public and private interests and in boing able to ride the storm of private capital influx. The real life of governance The concept of local governance! has come to take on a positive connotation in the recent Ierature of turban oultural policy. Somehow this Keyword, ‘gov- ‘ermance’, has come to be associated with possibil ties of potical devolution and decentralization, with a valorization of local civic autonomy, with the advocacy of a new poltical conduct that is respon- sive to local access, engagement and participation. We have to say, however, that the recent Beyouu ‘experience — in terms of both substantive policy decisions and mode of political operation ~ belles ‘such constructive anticipation. n the contemporary Istanbul context, the real fe of urban governance is a far cry from the democratic possiilly The everyday real world of local administration here in Istanbul (and, no ‘here’ is unique any more) is unfortunately a compromised reality, ‘Globelly- localized’, of course you can think of it as such — ¢lobalization as experienced at the local level ~ but188 | MeTROPOLITAN CULTURAL POLITICS, POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE this doosn't automatically or necessarily translate into a politics of local democracy. Indeed, it can be said that the conditions of globalization seem now, if anything, to be inhibiting local democracy in the case of Istanbul, There are also active logics of constraint at work, democracy-impeding logics, we have to say. Democracy must always, in some way, be about openness; in principle, at east, it stands fot autonomy, choice and attendant posstolty Beyodiu, in stark contrast, may be taken as a case of a governance system in which decision-making processes have been subordinated to the gov ‘ering logies of politcal affiiation and global ent erprise, in close collaboration (@ system in which local autonomy is occluded, and localization is quite compatible with authoritarianism). How does cultural governance take shape in BoyoGlu, then, in the real-world context of contem- porary, ‘globalizing’ Istanbul? How is the Beyogjlu local government dealing with the challenges we outlined above? According to its ambitious Mayor: We are reshaping whole Beyoglu trom one end 10 the other, We are instaling street lighting; we're pioneering in restoration of civl structures and monumental works. Beyogiu is a district which has spearheaded change in Turkey since the day Cf its inception. From fashion to banking, from recroation to culture, literature to cinema, architecture to sculptures with a broad spectrum approach it has renewed itself through history, has >beon a source for the ronovatian of tho country. ‘Beyodlu once again owns up to this innovation spirit which it has stayed bahind. We aro preparing ‘hundreds of projects for Beyogiu. (Beyoolu ‘Municipality n.d.) Reshaping, installing, pioneering, spearheadin. ‘This is all about the marketing of brand Beyogj’. In understanding the nature of this response, there is a structural aspect to be addressed, concerning the nature of the relation between the local and the ‘central and between public and private interests. First, the logic of pollical affliation has a clear significance, The local authority of Beyogju is under the control of the conservative and teligiously- oriented AKP (the Justice and Development Party), which also controls the Metropolitan Municipality, and which for some eight years now has been the ruling national party of Turkey. The logio of ideological and cultural afilation operates within ‘@ powertul and decisive logic of globalization, and characterized by global-city formation. As @ party committed to neo-liberal economics, the AKP is, fully committed to globalization and its conse- ‘quences, as its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has made abundantly clear. Committed, therefore, to ‘making Istanbul a fully operational global metropo- lis (Aksoy 2008). We see that focal authorities governed by AKP are equally engaged in the gio- baalization agenda, and in the context of the devolu- tion of power to the local level since the arrival of AKP to the central government, local municipalities have been embelished with more power to put into effect their visions (Aksoy 2009). The vision of local politicians these days is articulated in terms of making their cities competitive, branding and mar- keting them as attractive fooations for investors, tourists and consumers — entrepreneutialism in local government is now a readily accepted, and indeed expected, practice. At every level of govern: ment, then, from the district of Beyoglu to the met- ropolitan evel of Istanbul to the central government level, Istanbul's strategy to become a global city is being shared and put into action. Culture, of ‘course, takes on a whole new significance in this, new environment of local enterprise. Cultural het: age and cultural industries have now come to be acknowledged as forces of attraction, as project. ors of identity, and as generators of wealth. (And, of course, in this domain of operation, in terms of both the ancient and the modern, bountiful endowed Beyoilu no doubt sits in prime position, Local entrepreneurialism receives support from the state in the form of legal and regulatory changes, including a controversial now law for the ‘renewal’ of historic areas (Law No. 5366), in add tion to welHfinanced programmes for the develop- ment and promotion of the city’s cultural and {ourism infrastructure, as it was the case in the Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture pro- gramme where central government committed an investment equivalent to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism's annual budget towards the restora- tion and regeneration of the city's cultural heritage. Law No. 5366 (forthe ‘Preservation by Renovation ‘and Utilization by Revitalizing of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties’ is @ good example here to demonstrate the determina- tion of focal and central governments to push the agenda of urban regeneration for the purposes of city marketing and the ensuing result of the arrivalRESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING....NSTANBLL | 189 of very powerful new players Into the stakeholder map ofthe city This law gives extraordinary powers to local authorities to declare urban renewal erees, and ‘o implement development plans in run-down areas wihin historic - and often, indeed, ‘deteriorated’ ~ cutural sites. ‘The structural position, then, in which Beyodta Municipality finds itself is actually one of demo- cratic inhibition and restriction. On the political side, there is pressure from central government and from the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality to carry out large-scale renewal projects. Pressure to conform, that is to say, to what has become a standard, imposed model for urban development. It would be poltcally unthinkable for Beyogjl to buck the trend, And, to add to this, there is now pressure and con- straint from economic and entrepreneutial inter- ests, too. A great deal of potential development, a great deal of money 10 be made ~ and, for the Municipality, economic. development. possibilities {and prestige, too). In this complex force field of motivations and invested interests, there is minimal room for manoeuvre. Exceptionalism has no place in the overall planning logic in play. Local autonomy isnot an issue to be adcressed. We come now to a second aspect of the way In which the actual dynamics of globalization are shaping, and determining, cultural poles, govern ‘anee and policy in Istanbul, This concerns how the structural relations and forces that we have just been outlining become transiated into a rationale of purpose, a programme of action, a determination of priorities. Ths is to shift from structural to substan- five issues, What has taken shape under the present adhhinistration? What logics of develop- ment have come into play as a consequence of the ‘new political and economic partnerships and ali- ances? What has happened in the real world of cultural policy and governance in Istanbul and Beyoiju? The Beyoglu Conservation Area Plan Let us draw attention to the core constellation of ‘objectives that seem now to be most central to the turban cuttural initiative of Beyoiju Municipality (hey are not the only concerns of the Municipality — but we suggest that they are the primary ones). These privileged objectives are all direct outcomes of the ‘AKP’s overt globalizing ambitions, in which Istanbul {sto bo made the principal stage for demonstrating to the world Turkey's global status, First, and funda~ mentally, there is the emphasis on upgrading the district. This amounts to extensive gentrification projects, and the only way to achieve this objective seems to actively involve big-league private-sector interests and resources. And, at the present historical moment, given the long neglect of Istanbut's historic, inner-city districts over decades, there are massive ‘cleaning-up' opportunities to be had. The modernization ‘delay’ in istanbul ~ Caglar Keyder (2010: 82) characterizes it in torms of the ‘final commodification of land’ — turns out to now provide a major opportunity, in terms of twenty-first century investment and development opportunities. ‘The pursuit of gentrification, conducted in the name of revitalization and upgrading goes hand in hand with the desire for image transformation, That — turban image re-design — is a seoond cultural objec- tive, presented as an imperative: to make Beyoglu look, as the mayor Ahmet Misbah Demircan has put it, like Champs-Elysées (Hdrriyet 2009) rather than the dilapidated relic of a weary old Ottorian city that Orhan Pamuk (2008) has, all too graphi- cally, and famously, and globally, depicted. A carn- paign of strategic’ image-projection, in order to correct, or to vanquish, decades, at least, of per- coived image-deticit in the eyes of the outside world. ‘Seconds the new identity and function atributed to Beyodju. The Beyogiu Conservation Area Plan (actually prepared by the Metropolitan Municipality), which was made public at the beginning of 2011 (Beyoglu Municipality 2011) ~ made quietly public (we sa this because the Pian was initially aval able only at @:seriously prohibitive price, and only made reasonably accessible after public protest) ~ ro-affirms the local government's new vision of ‘Beyogju. It is a plan that makes apparent the prioti- ties of the governing poitcal mindset ~ by now conventional global-minded priorities. So, just what are the points of priority in this Plan? What are the points of emphasis? The first and essential point to be made is that the Plan indeed has a pro-eminent emphasis on real-estate development, across a premium zone of three square kilometres of this inner-city municipalty The detailed, parcel-level focus is intended to maximize real-estate investment possibilities in a neighbourhood that cannot expand because of its very central locetion (UniGi Yicesoy 2008). Thus,180 | metRoPoLiTaW CULTURAL POLITICS, POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE ‘out of the total 10,000 or so properties in the area, the ones which are not listed, 5,800 of them become potential targots for real-estate develop- ‘ment with no conservation restrictions attached. Hence the size of new construction activity that will bbe descending on the district is evident. The Plan clearly aims to create gentitied, cleaned out, and upgraded built environments that are deemed to be attraciive for tourists and for moneyed classes. This new class of users and residents are what the Municipality is after and the Beyoglu Pian has been very clearly shaped by this prerogative. Greater commercialzation and the promotion of tourisin as engines of economic growth constitute, then, the main gist of Beyoiu Municipality vision for the area. According to this new image, all the functions that do not fit in with the projected new identity of the Municipality are targeted to be moved out, and in their place new functions that are in harmony with this identity are to be installed. What this amounts to isthe removal of all the established manufacturing activities and warehouses that came to inhabit differant parts of the district, and which gave it its social character. Lighting equipment producers, household ap ances producers, furture-makers,jewellery-makers, the wholesale of construction materials and of car Parts, ete. ~ these are all set to move (or, rather, be ‘moved) out of the area. In their place will bo new, up-market Jeisure and consumption spaces, to compete with the many others that have been pro- literating all across Istanbul in the last ten years. Upgrading of historical stock, so imagined, will also serve to ‘improve’ the Image and identity of the district The themes of tourism, consumerism, image and identity are tightly interwoven. In this same cause of image improvement, and with the same eye on tourism, the Plan identities specitic ‘areas for cultural establishments to be situated. The ‘most important of these are the Halig Shipyard Area, the Tepebagcistrict and Tophane, Whatis significant is that Halig Shipyard area and Tepebasi areas are both being transferred to major private groups. Hallo ‘Shipyard area has been given to the Kog company, t0_be turned into an industrial museum complex; and the Tepebas! area was earmarked to another major industrial conglomerate, the Suna and inan Kirag Foundation, which has explored the possibilities — vwithout success as yet ~ of a Frank Gehry-designed opera house there. Tophane is the only district in which there ate small and individually-run art estabishments in operation ~ also, of course, pat (a small part ofthe gertification moment. However, considering that Tophane isin the eaten aroa of Galataport — a major cruise ship development close by, on the Bosphorus ~ itis key that there wl be a hugo rent increase in Toohane, eventually crivng the small galleries out. Ths, of course, the logic cf the big gentrification — the logic of the Conservation Area Plan that seeks to override the piecemeal (dis- organized) everyday Wie ofthe ciizens of Bevo what Alan Blum (2010; 66-67) calls the vital ‘sense of contcuity and consequentaity necessary to that fives inthe ety, vitally necessary for them to be able ‘o imagine themes as matoring. Civic atmosphere. We are by now a tong way from ‘coo! and ‘elee- tri’... We come to the real heart of the matter =the crucial heart: to the social reallties of Beyotlu, which have no place in the scheme of uroan renewal as developed in the Plan. We have already suggested that the new developments in Beyodju ~ from cultural and heritage installations through to ‘shopping centres and leisure spaces — are intended primarily for visitors, for consumers and tourists We want to refiect now on the implications of this priortization, with its consequent and effective disavowal of the realities ~ the aspirations and ‘the demands - of the populations living in the Municipality. These demands include a sense of ‘continuity, to pick up again on Alan Bium's (2010: 66) formulation, but also the more ambitious ideal ‘of being of consequence, of ambition, expectation, ‘and opportunity...’ For Blum, a creative urban envi- ronment is one that can sustaln ‘the image of a normal life that is treated inspirationally as the ‘exemplary Ife, valued as a Ife worth living and that ‘matters and that makes a difference at any present defining moment’. An idealistic formulation; that ‘urban citizens would demand a future of conse- uence. And, in the new Beyogju content, this asp tation has been disturbed and unsettled, and in its place there is now a sense of impermanence and vulnerabilty ~ of radical inoonsequentialty. ‘Some 15 years ago, Stéphane Yerasimos (1997: 213) characterized the then occurring processes of gentrification in Beyoglu in terms of a ‘re-conquest of the centre’ by the middle classes. Since the 1960s, many parts of the then abandoned centreRESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING...mistanBUL | 191 tad been occupied by migrants from Anatolia, driven from the land and fooking for a foothold in the city. What developed in the process was an inlormal, and invariably iegal, settlement pattern and economy. It was chaotic, and at times precari = ous, butt worked as a functioning system, creating is ov distinetve mechanisms and drawing upon is own collective and patrimonial resources. The beginnings of tho middle-class ‘e-conquest ofthat time, mostly in the Cihangir district, were also, in their own way, informal ~ Eda UnlG Yaeesoy (2008: 38) writes of ‘the amorphous, incividual-driven ‘character of the gentrification process’. Composed forthe most part of what aro frequently refered to as bourgeols-boherians (those working inthe cre- ative and social professions — media, advertising, design, fashion, architecture, NGO activists, ete), these were individual gentrfers, drawn by the atrative housing stock of Cinangit, but also con- cerned withthe improvement of the social and cul- ‘ural environment. These incomers had a strong ‘9eng@ of the virtues of informal association and of the vital significance of public space and culture. Overtime, then, Beyoglu developed a very mixes demography: poor Anatolian migrants, the creative- professional middie classes (of cool Istanbul), as well as Boma/Gypsies, Kurdish refugees, transna- tional migrants (including many AVficans). A hetero- geneous population that came together aver time, each group finding a place according to its means, all of ther finding some means to coexist, even to _ckrowiedge their place in the overall versity and complexity that had taken shape, Over time, the gathering of diferent social and cultural constituen- ces, creating in the process a kind of contem- porary, cosmopolitanism — the elements of a cosmopolitan potential, at least. They are the co- producers of a distinctive urban atmosphere ~ of the mixed atmosphere of Beyodiu. ‘But the re-conquest ofthe centre has now taken ‘8 new proportion and character. No longer the affair of individual gentriiors, now it is a question of the moneyed middle classes, and of a more systematic tekeover, driven by systemic corporate and political interests. Then there is the conquest ofthe idea of Beyogiu: that is, the generalization of chosen styles of building types and urben fabric from the Ottoman period, and thei reification as the'authentic'culture of Beyoglu. What this amounts to Is that the whole area becomes ossified as a museum piece and a new norm is set, what we may term ‘neo-Ottomanism’, in architecture and design. In the end, this it what the Beyoglu Plan io all about. The consequences of this next phase of the re-conquest for Beyoglu — in social, cultural, and human terms - are immense. First, there isthe continued marginalization and exclusion of the poor and of those marked as undesirabie(Yardimet 2010), Their vital interests suppressed, they are to be driven from the urban centre and thereby from social visiiity. Second, what we are seaing at tho same time is @ calculated assault on the principle of informally, which has been a significant factor, a social and organizational resource we can say, in the practices of daily fife in Istanbul. Informality may readily translate into autonomy, partial at feast. The new re-conquest is clearly about the extensive assertion of control over the urban ‘space. And, third, what is now being deconstructed is the social ecology that has developed over the years in Beyodlu, accommodating a diversity and ‘complexity of groups. Let us not idealize it, but let us acknowledge the establishment of a certain ‘modus vivendi, a mannor and idiom of coexistence of diferent ways and trajectories of life, the exer- cise of what we might call reasonabie association. What is happening with respect to architeoture and urban design ~ standardization, that is to say ~ is, also being applied as a corresponding principle of modernization and homogenization in the social and cultural domain. What is required is a demo- ‘graphic profile in keeping with the objectives of the Beyogiu Pian. Aease in point 7 Bogazkesen Street runs down from istiktat Caddesi, the former Grande Rue de Péra, to the neighbour- hood of Tophane, and from there you can walk ‘on in just a few minutes to the Istanbul Modern. Tophane is a poor inner-city district, the living space of conservative and religious migrants from ‘Anatolia, However, given Its recent corridor status between cultural spaces, it has recently become the location of around a dozen small, commercial art galleries, On the evening of 21 September 2010, an attack occurred on a number of these gal lerles, in which visitors to gallery openings were assaulted and injured by locals wielding sticks, knives, broken bottles and pepper spray. Why? It ‘was quickly argued thet this was a conflict between, religious and secular cultures, with religious con- servatives objecting to young gallery visitors drinking182 | meTROPOLITAN CULTURAL POLITICS, POLIGIES AND GOVERNANCE alcohol on the street outside the galleries, and/or to being disrespectful to women in the street wearing headscarves. And It was also said that some of the ‘taboo-breaking’ gallery exhibits were offensive to both istam and to Mustafa Kemal Atatirk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. On the basis of a further reflection, it was suggested that a major factor of provocation had been the logic of rapid gentrification in the neighbourhood: that local inhabitants were becoming agitated and concerned bby the newly opening galleries, and also by the proliferation of alcohol-sorving restaurants and apartment hotels, all of which were conspiring to push up rents, and were creating anxiety among the established residents about their ability to main= ‘ain their hold on livainood in Tophane. * It was a street confrontation, a localized conflict. But if turned out to be much more too: to be a reso- rant event, a symbolic encounter — concerning plate ini (0 cho} ‘Aksoy, A (2008) etanbuts choice’, Third Text, 22(1): 71-83 ‘Aksoy, A. (2008) "The Atatrk Cuturel Centre ond AKP's “mind shift policy’ pp. 191-212 in Ada, S. and ince, AH. (eds), Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. istanbul: Ibtenbul Bigi Univerelly Prose ‘Aksoy, A. and Robins, K. (2011) ‘History, memory, debris: Sulukule, don’ forget, pp. 222-290 in Anteier, HK. and Isar, A. (eds), Heritage, Memory & Identiy. The Cultures ‘and Globalization Series 4. London: SAGE. Batur, A. (2005) ‘Art nouveau architecture and Istanbul, Dp. 141-166 In edlor? Art Nouveau trom Europe 10 |stanbul, 1890-1950. Istanout arin Vakh. pyodls Municpaliy (4) ‘Beyogu as a brand, avalabe at: Intp:en .beyootubelsrour brands/defeulaspx7Sectionide 11680 (aocesso3 10 February 2011) ‘Beyodily Muriclpaly (2011) Beyogiu Kentsel St Alan) Koruma ‘Amagl Uygulama imar Plann Paporu [Beyodlu Uban CCoriservation Area Bulding Works Implemontaton Pian for Conservation], pubisned on the website of the Beyogis Municipality, www.beyoglu.bel.tbeyoglu_balediyasi/ hhabor_defaut.aspx?Sectionid=1438Contentidad 1688, ‘Blum, A. (2070) ‘Rallections on the plattude ofthe “creative lly", pp. 85-95 In Boutros, A. and Straw, W. (ads), (Circulation andthe City: Essays on Urban Curture.Montrcal 4 Kingston: MeG-Queen's University Press. Bohme, G. (1998) ‘Atmosphere as the fundamental concept (of a new gesthales. Thesis Seven, 38: 113-126. dispossession, enforced displacement, the uncivil force of urban enclosures. It proved to be an event conveying the fact ofa deep divide of interests, and the fact, oo, that there is no longer trust among the vulnerable populations of the city. One artist recalled an assailant shouting out YOu don't want us, 80 ne dont want you. Two days alter what he dubbed the ‘inldent, the Turks Cullure Minster visited ‘Tophane and called for ‘tolerance’. ‘Those who present the incident in Tophane es a panorama of Turkey are engaged in an extremely stale game’, declared tho Prime Minister of Turkey, ro less. Clearly the Ministers, Cultural and Prime, were cuickly aware thatthe incident hada wicng grey. Wat happened in Tophane actually is cary tein us something signifeant about what is going on in Istanbul generally these days. Kis teling us some- thing ebout the atmosphere of the cl, the sensed atmosphere, about the city’s grave mood at this time, Bohme, G. (2006) Architektur und Atmospheive. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. oli, Z. (1986) The Remaking of istanbut Portrait of an ‘Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century. Seatle, Wa Univorety of Washington Press. ‘De Amis, E. (2005)[1877] Constantinople. London: Hesperus. Eldem, E. (2008) ‘Ottoman Galata and Pora between myth ‘and really’, pp. 18-36 in Tlschier,U. (ed), From eu ae ‘Mémeire' fo ‘Liou de Mémotra The Cultural Memory of Istanbul in the 20th Century. Munich: Martin Weicenbaue. Elem, §. H. (1979) Istanbul Anien/Remmnisconces of Istanbul. starbul Aletag Alarko Egitm Tessier Fiokol, A. 2011} Istanbul thrives as the now party capital of Europe’, Observer, 2 January. Foroohar, F. and Matthews, ©. (2005) “Turis delight ‘Newsweek, 29 August: 31-34, Harryot(2008) isa caddesine Sanzelize model, 3 Augue, Islam, T. 2010) '30 Jahre Abenteuer: Gentiizierung i Tstanbut, pp. 69-20 in Psohara, W., Ik, G. and Back, ©. (6d), oterityIstanbul-Born. Borin: Dag. Keyder, G. (2010) “Istanbul into the twenty-first conta, Pp. 25-84 in Goktrk, D., Soysal, L. and Tare, i. (es COriening istanbul Cukural Capit of Europe? London Routledge, ‘Naum-Duhani, 8. (1947) Vieifes gens, vies demeures: ‘topographie sociale de Beyoglu au XIXbme site stank Eaiions du Touring et Automoblie Club de Turquie.RESHAPING, INSTALLING, PIONEERING, SPEARHEADING, "Naur-Duhan\, S. (1958) Quand Beyosiy s‘appelait Péra: tes tongs qu ne reviencont plus. Isenbul: Edtion ‘La Turquie Modeme’- Pamuk, ©. (2008) Istanbul: Memories of a City. London Faber end Faber ‘Suyngedoun, E (2010) ‘iy or pols? Profitable pales... or ‘he end ofthe polical, pp. 214-289 in Bul, S., Tan, W. ‘and Tunas, 0. (eds), Megacties: Exploring 2 Sustainable Future Rotordarn: 010 Publishers Thelen, 8. (2008) fatonbut Sta unter Som. Freiburg: Herder. Tscier, U. (2006) ‘Retour aux sources: indicateurs ident- teres & Para comme milieu de memoir’, pp. 38-58 In mstansu | 193, Tischer, U. (ed), From Mileu de Mémoire" o ‘Liew de Mémoire’: The Cultural Memory of Istanbul in the 20th Contury. Munich: Martin Meidonbauer. {niu Vacasoy, E. (2008) ‘Contested public spaces ws. con- ‘queted pubic Spaces: gentrification and is rtlections on Utban pubic space in Istantut, pp. 20-47 in Eckardt, F ‘and Wikdner, K. (eds), Public Istanbul: Spaces and Spheres: ofthe Urban. Belted wanserit. Yardimes, S. (2010) ‘La face cachée de la mévopote’ Urbanisme, 374: 71-73, Yerasimos, S. (1997) Istanbul: la nalesance d'une mégapoe’, ewe Géographique de "Est, 37(2-3): 189-218.