13th AESOP Young Academics Conference 2019: Planning inclusive

spaces - an inter- and transdisciplinary approach

Tittle: Inclusion through Identity and Collective Memory: Places of

memory and the production of urban space in Beyoglu, Istanbul

Authors: Bourli, Vasiliki; Dadas, Merve and Machado, Mateus

Abstract

This paper looks at the promotion of inclusion in public space through the idea of places of
memory. These are places with a unique identity and history, which shape the character of the
area. Contemporary Beyoglu, mainly Istiklal Street, has been going through a transformation
phase, characterised by a booming of large-scale market-oriented urban development projects,
and related policy changes and practices that exclude a big part of the users of the area and have
catalyzed a process of gentrification. As a consequence, places of memory are under constant
threat. Working from the existing literature on spatial justice, public space, political economy and
Istanbul’s urban history, we analyse a database of online questionnaires and detailed interviews
with local experts. The findings of this research provide evidence that places of memory are
directly connected to the right to the city, as people produce urban space by socially interacting in
these places. In this sense, losing places of memory can lead to an exclusive public space. The
regeneration measures in Beyoglu illustrate the disrespect of the government towards the unique,
diverse and culturally rich character of Beyoglu, as it seeks to transform the area into an
homogeneous space for consumerism and cultural consumption.

Keywords: Places of Memory, Public Space, Inclusivity, Istanbul

Introduction

Based on the case study of Beyoglu district in Istanbul, this paper looks at the promotion of
inclusion in public space through places of memory. These are places that are defined by social
relationships in everyday life and with their unique history and identity have been important
references in the collective memory of people of Beyoglu. The analysis of the Beyoglu case study
provides an understanding of the potential that places of memory have to offer for the creation of
an inclusive urban environment. Contemporary Beyoglu, mainly Istiklal Street, has been going
through a transformation phase, characterised by a booming of large-scale market-oriented urban


development projects, and related policy changes and practices that exclude a big part of the users
of the area and have catalyzed a process of gentrification. This has resulted in the closing-down or
moving-out of many small traditional businesses that have been important shapers of the distinct
character of the area. Moreover, other places of gathering and casual social interaction have been
transformed through the mentioned process of gentrification. Traditional shops and venues have
been evicted and popular spots for gathering and social interaction have been transformed, in
order to maximize profit and flatten social diversity. Despite such radical urban transformations,
these places remain alive in the collective memory of citizens. Therefore, we try to understand to
what extent it is possible to promote more inclusive public spaces by registering and giving visibility
to such places of memory. Based on existing literature on spatial justice, public space, political
economy and Istanbul’s urban history, we analyse a database of online questionnaires and
detailed interviews with local experts. The findings of this research provide evidence that places of
memory are directly connected to the right to the city, as people produce urban space by socially
interacting in these places. In this sense, losing places of memory can lead to an exclusive public
space. The regeneration measures in Beyoglu illustrate the lack of respect from the government
towards the unique, diverse and culturally rich character of Beyoglu, as it seeks to transform the
area into a homogeneous space for consumerism and cultural consumption. At the same time,
collective memory can be used as a tool for resistance, towards the promotion of more inclusive
public space.


The article is structured in 5 sections. In the following section we explore the relationship between
inclusive public spaces, democracy and collective memory. Specifically, we examine how
democratic practices and inclusion can be raised when there is some kind of agency around
collective memory of citizens. Then, we provide an analysis of places of memory and how these
are represented in the collective imaginary of people of Beyoglu. In the next session we analyze
the recent transformation phase of Beyoglu and its impact on the places of memory and the overall
character of the area, as well as the feeling of users for it. From this analysis it becomes obvious
the need to register places of memory as well as the still remaining identity with the hope that
some kind of collective awareness can be raised. Following this, we present our mapping project,
where we tried to collect and register many of these places. The article finishes with some
concluding thoughts on how places of memory invite people to appropriate them and in this way to
remake the city in a more personal and intimate way. Thus, they are directly connected to the right
to the city.


Inclusive public spaces, democracy and collective memory

While widely discussed in urban studies literature, the concept of public space is highly flexible and
mutable, gaining different meanings according to how it is appropriated. In common sense, public
spaces are related to spaces of free access, usually outdoors, which can be used by any citizen
despite class or social status, such as parks, streets, plazas, etc. However, such simplistic
definition has been challenged in many ways. We want to focus on an expanded idea of public
space, especially in the way it is shaped in the imaginary of citizens through collective memory. In
addition, we understand that there is a need to talk about spaces usually considered as private,
such as bars, cafes, restaurants, cinemas in the debate about public space transformation. We are
not necessarily claiming that such spaces are considered as fully public, but they are places of
encounter and sociability that transform over time, conforming places of memory. At the same time,
as we will further explain in this article, these kind of private spaces shape the political economy of
public space (Harvey 2005).

There have been attempts, in academia and policy making environments, to built a common idea
of what public space is. For instance, European urbanists have launched a Charter of Public
Space, which defines public space as ‘all places publicly owned or of public use, accessible and
enjoyable by all for free and without a profit motive’ (Charter of Public Space 2013). The charter
puts a special emphasis on open spaces and also mentions indoor spaces such as museums and
libraries. In addition, there is a wide recognition on the connection of public space to the ideals of
democracy, seeing public space as the arena for the public sphere and for maintaining a certain
sense of citizenship (Charter of Public Space 2013).

To begin our analysis, before introducing the relations between public space and places of
memory, we present some critical perspectives on the assumptions that (1) public space and
democracy are directly related and (2) public space is independent or disattached from private
spaces of encounter. We will present some criticisms of these assumptions in order to create the
grounds to built a more expanded idea of public space that relates to collective memory as a
source of inclusion.

The association of democracy and public space, although celebrated by many authors has been
challenged by scholars such as David Harvey and Ash Amin. Although Harvey (2005) assumes
that there could be some potential links between these two spheres, he also warns that:


‘Some kind of association or even identity has been forged between the proper shaping of
urban public space and the proper functioning of democratic governance in the public
sphere. The status of this association is, perhaps for good reason, often left extremely
vague’ (Harvey 2005).

Ash Amin (2008) has proposed an even more incisive critique on this correlation, stating that ‘it is
too heroic a leap to assume that making a city’s public spaces more vibrant and inclusive will
improve urban democracy’ (Amin 2008). For the author, spaces of civic participation are more
diffuse, and can be hosted by intangible platforms not related to the urban, such as books,
magazines, television and other kinds of associations. In that sense, although public spaces can
promote inclusion of unrepresented groups and provide the grounds for participatory practices
through sociability, there might be a mistake in measuring the level of participatory practices or
democracy based on the social dynamics of public space and the levels of sociability that some
spaces might host (Amin 2008). In that sense, we propose moving the debate on inclusion beyond
the intensity of spatial appropriation or the level of access to public space. As we will later present,
the collective memory of citizens might be not only a path to understand transformation of space,
but also a possible agent for change and promotion of more inclusive or even democratic public
spaces and cities.

Many authors also propose more complex understandings of public space that go beyond its
definition as the opposite of private space. Social encounters that shape collective memory happen
not only in parks, streets and squares, but also in bars, cafes and street cinemas. And if collective
memory has potential in promoting inclusion, we cannot exclude these spaces, often considered as
strictly private, from our discussion and analysis. Amin (2008) points that it is not possible to define
one single archetype of public space, as cities host a variety of ‘space-times of aggregation’ (Amin
2008). Therefore:

‘Public spaces come in many forms: open spaces of different kinds such as parks, markets,
streets and squares; closed spaces such as malls, libraries, town halls, swimming pools,
clubs and bars; and intermediate spaces such as clubs and associations confined to specific
publics such as housing residents, chess enthusiasts, fitness fanatics, anglers,
skateboarders and the like’ (Amin 2008).

Not only are these kind of commercial spaces seen as places of encounter and, consequently, as
places of memory, but they can also shape public space as a spectacle, as they transform through
processes of commodification. Harvey (2005) defines a political economy of public space, which is
very much defined by the commercial spaces that surround it and, therefore, influenced directly by
private interests of landlords, developers, construction companies, etc. In addition, access to a
certain urban area by mainly a certain social class might be defined by the commercial uses of that


area, in a way that the existence of expensive bars and restaurants might exclude for example the
presence of lower classes. At the same time, shops may transform public space into a spectacle of
consumption, which is related to strategies of political pacification inherent in capitalism (Harvey
2005).

Therefore, public space is constantly reshaped by the complex relationships between shops, bars,
restaurants, museums, institutional spaces, streets, parks, sidewalks, squares, etc. In that sense,
commercial spaces such as cafes or cinemas relate to public space in two ways: on the one hand,
they are spaces of encounter and sociability and, therefore, become part of the collective memory
of citizens; on the other hand, the way these spaces are transformed can lead to commodification,
exclusion or spectacularization of the public space. These two dimensions will be further explored
in the following sections of the paper. First, it is important to further expand on the notion of
collective memory and its relation to public space or, more specifically, the creation of places of
memory. Then, we will analyse how such spaces are affected by transformations under a capitalist
mode of urbanization.

Places of Memory in Beyoglu

Existing literature on defining and analysing collective memory and memory places from different
disciplines has diverse but limiting perspectives mostly focused on commemoration and
memorialization directly linked to collective national memories. While Halbwachs’s study (cited in
Atkinson 2005) emphasizes the theory more within geographies, Nora’s work (cited in Atkinson
2005) emphasizes it within physical realms and environments. Looking at de Certeau, Benjamin
and Lefebvre, their prospect of memory through the city was more of a continuous, multilayered
one produced by historical, social and spatial aspects (cited in Atkinson 2005).

Working on such a metropolitan and multicultural geography requires a broader vision on how
collective memory and meanings of places of memory have emerged. In this sense, Bloomfield’s
ideas are closely related to the processes we have found in Beyoglu:

‘The sources of meaning come from experiences in the city that integrate the self and
others who come from inside and outside, and from ideas that come from all over of the
world. Therefore the memory, history and identity of a city are not the emanation of an
enclosed, hermetically sealed, ‘pure’ group and their past, but the ongoing social
construction of people with diverse histories whose lives intersect in a specific
place’ (Bloomfield 2006).

In order to look at the creation of places of memory with more flexibility and to have a wider spatial
understanding we try to observe the influences of everyday places of different scales and different


categories instead of distinct sites like monuments, squares or museums (Atkinson 2005). These
places are where social relationships happen and they act as places of personal and social
memories (derived from historical events and civic rituals) rather than being just physical
(Bloomfield 2006).

The unique identity of Istiklal street and the area around it is a product of decades of history with
constantly changing residents and diverse visitors from all around the world. Beyoglu hosted
minorities such as Greek, Armenians and other European citizens for decades and, with their
influence, became the modern, western center of Istanbul. Over time, the profile of Beyoglu has
changed as a result of the pogrom between Greece and Turkey and the minority policies and
Beyoglu started to host new citizens from east of Turkey, who migrated for job opportunities in the
big city (Adanali 2011a). These constant demographic changes always brought urban
transformations and contributed to the diversity, identity and, consequently, the collective memory
in the area. Numerous cultural spaces, bookstores, artisanal workshops, art galleries, restaurants,
bars, clubs and music venues served as encounter and meeting spaces for people from different
places and backgrounds and acted as a melting pot. They have been important in providing
integration, tolerance and a sense of belonging, where people from different ages, social and
ethnic backgrounds meet and interact. Such forms of interaction are crucial for the consolidation of
places of memory (Cruz, Roskamm and Charalambous 2018). Moreover, these places can offer
satisfaction of security, social group affiliation and a space for creative expression and exploration
which figures most strongly in memory, as claimed in Chawla’s work (cited in Bloomfield 2006).

We have found out that these theories are also part of everyday, real life experiences in people’s
stories shared with us through an online survey. These personal narratives are replies to the
question ‘Do you have any special story experienced in places you like in Beyoglu, which you
would like to share?’ In the collected stories Beyoglu has been seen as a place where one can
experience art, creativity, photography, music, theater and cinema. This character is linked to
cultural wealth, being a place for inspiration and self development. Most importantly, it is
recognized as a space of diversity, where one can find activities and places for any kind of taste,
aesthetic and style. For many people Beyoglu is full of places where they had their first
experiences of youth and at the same time full of memories of growing old. It is a place of rituals,
as mentioned in one of the collected stories:

‘The music stores along the street from Tunel to Karakoy are my intimate spaces and the
places of my superstitions (totems). Sometimes I find strange to assign such a special
meaning to a public space. I took all the important decisions that changed my life when I
was walking on this route. I kissed my first lover for the first time in St. Antuan church. I still
go to this church when I feel lonely and tired’ (Kiygi 2018).


Through the analysis of the survey's answers, we have found out that these rituals and habits give
meaning and sense of belonging to the space. In addition, there is a feeling of solidarity and
tolerance in the personal interactions happening in these places. People also relate places of
memory with freedom, embracing difference and trust. There is an overall feeling of nostalgia
about the area, as people mention that they feel a loss of character and identity. This loss is related
to the radical urban transformations taking place in Beyoglu, which will be further explored in the
following section.

Contemporary Beyoglu and its urban transformations

Contemporary Istanbul has been going through a period of urban transformations based on large
scale projects, aiming at physical and demographic upgrading, rather than improvement of life of
existing users (Kuyucu and Ünsal 2010). These transformations usually occur after alliances
formed between state, capital and local governments (Adanali 2011c). Likewise Istanbul,
contemporary Beyoglu, mainly Istiklal Street, is going through a new transformation phase. Real
estate agencies play an important role in shaping this transformation (Adanali 2011b), which is
characterized by authoritarian forms of decision-making, commercialization, gentrification projects
and large scale, market-oriented urban development.

Small businesses that have been shaping the character of the area, running at the same point
since decades face hostile policies and regulations, sometimes even forced evictions, as a part of
this profit-oriented type of urban development. As a result many of them are moving out or closing
down. Historical buildings are being renovated with little respect to heritage issues, mainly to be
sold to multinational commercial brands. Most dramatically, some of these buildings, like the
historic Cercle D’Orient, were transformed into shopping malls through top-down processes. Cercle
D’Orient hosted the Emek Movie Theater and the Inci patisserie, both important landmarks for the
cultural life of Beyoglu, which were also recognized as places of memory. These venues were
evicted, along with a part of the history and the character of the area, so that Cercle D’Orient could
be transformed into the polished and contextually irrelevant Demirören shopping mall. Maybe the
most famous example of state-led intervention to change the character of the area has been the
one in Gezi Park. The park is one of the last green and public spaces in the city center and the
government’s plan was to transform it into another shopping mall. But as Rolnik (2014) argues,
what seems to be behind such a plan is the motivation ‘to banish the plurality of uses of the square
by transforming Taksim into a clean pedestrian zone as part of a top-down urban policy‘. Actions
like this have not only affected collective memory, but also triggered waves of citizens’ protests.

Other popular spots for gathering and casual social interaction have been transformed through
similar strategies, in order to maximize profit and flatten social diversity. Such strategies include
commodification, privatization and control of public space. An example of such an intervention is


the Asmalımescit area, which was one of the most vibrant nightlife neighborhoods in Beyoglu until
2011, when outdoor seating got banned by law. The area started losing its vitality with bars closing
down one by one, day after day, until finally Asmalımescit was left in decay. These kind of
measures illustrate the lack of respect of the government towards the unique, diverse and culturally
rich character of Beyoglu, as it seeks to transform the area into a homogeneous space for
consumerism and cultural consumption.

Urban spaces like Beyoglu have been changing over the years, as different layers of buildings,
populations and uses come one after the other. These transformations may be recognized as
natural urban processes, impossible to be contained or resisted. However, what we see in Beyoglu
now is that such transformations have been occurring in extreme proportions, many times guided
by interests of profit maximization, which bring a radical change in the existing identity of the place.
Transformations are not led by the actors that once constituted the unique character of the area,
but by external forces that take advantage of such character. These external forces comprise
mainly the profit-led initiatives of private developers, supported by local government through the
flexibility in legislation for certain projects, which fits the new interest of transforming the area into a
space of consumerism. Thus, the real users of Beyoglu are excluded from their right to shape the
city, to be part of the transformation and identify themselves with it. In this way, a new kind of
alienation from public space and the city emerges. This has brought a general discontent over the
pace and style of urban transformation, which was expressed at the uprisings of 2013 (Harvey
2014). According to Bill Keller in his article in New York Times, people of Istanbul were in fact
fighting for ‘something bigger and more inchoate, dignity, the perquisites of citizenship, the
obligations of power’ (Keller 2013).

Mapping for collective action: Beyoglu, I will survive

As previously described, unjust urban transformations in Beyoglu may erase collective memory,
evict places of memory or control the use of public space. In those terms, it is urgent to register
what happened in the past and what is happening now, so that the still remaining identity of the
place is not forgotten and potential collective awareness can be raised. Registering collective
memory in the context of radical urban transformations is a crucial element for reaching urban
spatial justice and promoting inclusion. In addition, the means for promoting inclusive and just
urban transformations are not only in the hands of government or important decision makers, but
should involve collective engagement of citizens. Moreover, memory is a powerful tool to
encourage collective action, as it speaks to something that unites citizens around a common issue.
In that sense, the outcomes of the research presented here have been compiled into a map,
entitled Beyoglu: I Will Survive, which gives visibility to memory places and highlight the fact that
Beyoglu is losing them, one after another.


As Lambert (2015) points out, maps are an instrument of power. They not only represent the
reality, but also have the potential to transform both physical space and social relations (Lambert
2015). On the one hand maps can reproduce power and create exclusion of marginal groups,
since knowledge production is a determinant of policies and agendas. Through practices of
marginalization, manipulation, construction or control, maps can be used as structures of power,
reproducing the existing hegemony of certain dominant groups (Lambert 2015). On the other hand,
whenever power and oppression exists, resistance and transgression come as forms of reaction.
Therefore, maps can also be used to contest existing power, through different means. First, maps
can promote inclusion, by giving visibility to invisible practices and allowing marginal groups to
participate on the production of knowledge. Maps can raise critical reflection and learning, by
fostering debates on undiscussed issues and encouraging self-consciousness of individuals and
groups. Maps can also reframe, by presenting new relationships between hitherto independent
aspects and pointing to new tactics and strategies. Finally, maps can enable collective action, as
they bring people together around a common issue and can be used as a tool for mobilization
(Lambert 2015).

In order to develop the map Beyoglu: I will survive we engaged with citizens and experts through a
participatory process. The information represented in the map is based on stories people told us
collected via different methods: hundreds of answers from an online survey, questionnaires
distributed in local shops and detailed interviews with local experts. We also took several walks in
the area to understand its particularities and attentively register the variety of spaces. We were
very sensitive in giving visibility to each place pointed out to us in order to be sure that nothing
would be left uncovered and, at the same time, we paid attention to the triangulation of the
collected information. We differentiated places of memory into surviving, closed and moved, in
order to highlight the spatial dynamics of the radical transformations taking place, giving evidence
to phenomena of gentrification and exclusion. However, when one looks at the map it is also
possible to interpret forms of resistance, as many places of memory remain in the area.

We also represented a series of mega projects that are being built or are in the municipal plans of
the area. In this way, we try to show the pressure that these places have been suffering and how
they have to resist in order to survive. At the same time, we selected a series of personal stories
and narratives, which give voice to the more subjective and many times invisible perceptions of
citizens in relation to the places of memory depicted in the map. Thus, by overlapping places of
memory, personal narratives and top-down shaping forces we tried to take a snapshot of Beyoglu
today. What we see is that the area shows a strong underlying tissue of collective memory with a
still existing level of local identity.


Imagining Beyoglu of the future depends upon understanding its past and how it became what it is
now. The official history of this place can be found in tourist guides, archives, museums,
advertisements and all sorts of institutionalized historical registrations. However, another layer of
history, which comes from the everyday life of the ones who experience this place, can be very
easily lost or ignored. Buildings might be preserved, in their materiality, but the unique relations
that citizens establish with the urban environment are very easily erased and replaced by
homogenized relations of consumption. A map may not handle the capacity of compiling the infinite
complexity of relations that people have and had been having with Beyoglu, but it is a starting point
to expose these narratives. The map may be appropriated not only by the traditional users, who
are part of this collective memory, but also by those who are not aware of the existing
transformations and cannot perceive the space in its deepest meanings. Once in the hands of any
urban explorer, the map will be used for alternative routes in the area, through its remaining and
disappearing spaces. It may promote unexpected encounters, revive erased memories and foster
more resistance to arise.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed the relations between inclusion and collective memory in public
spaces, looking at the case of the district of Beyoglu in Istanbul. We have shown that places of
memory are directly linked to issues of inclusion and spatial justice. On the one hand, they create
the identity of an area, as they are places of encounter that create a diversity of connections
between citizens and urban space. At the same time, places of memory are affected by capitalist
modes of urbanization, which can create exclusion through processes of commodification and
spectacularization. Nevertheless, we have shown that there is a chance to claim for more inclusive
public spaces and contest existing structures of power, through mapping places of memory and
encouraging collective action.

At the beginning of the paper, we presented some critiques on the direct relation between the level
of sociability in public spaces and the conformation of democratic practices. Although many
authors directly relate public space to the public sphere, we have presented some theories that
contest this correlation. By presenting the case of Beyoglu, Istanbul, we have tried to show that
democratic practices and inclusion can be raised when there is some kind of agency around the
collective memory of citizens. If public space as physical space has a limit in shaping democracy,
the collective imaginary of citizens around places of memory might be one way of fostering more
inclusive urban transformations. We have shown that commercial spaces, such as cinemas, cafes
and bookshops should be taken in account in these transformations, as there is a blurry border
between the commercial and the public, and they directly influence each other. Therefore, by
framing an expanded perspective on what a public space is, we have tried to present a complex


correlation between commercial and public spaces in the conformation of collective memory and
the processes of inclusion and exclusion that shape cities. As David Harvey points out:

‘Contestation over the construction, meaning and organization of public space only takes effect,
therefore, when it succeeds in exercising a transformative influence over private and
commercial spaces. Action on only one of these dimensions will have little meaning in and
of itself’ (Harvey 2005).

Further on, we looked more closely at the idea of places of memory and how it manifests in the
district of Beyoglu. Through the presented research we have discovered that in Beyoglu places of
memory are presented in multiple ways in the collective imaginary of citizens. They are related to
diversity, rituals, culture and freedom, but at the same time to nostalgia and loss of identity. Later,
we have presented some examples of how a series of mega projects, changes in legislation and
radical urban transformations have been affecting these places of memory. In a context of capitalist
urban development, led by processes of accumulation through dispossession, the fragile tissue of
places of memory is slowly eradicated from the city, but remains present as a possibility of
resistance in the collective memory of citizens. Finally, we present the process of mapping as one
possible alternative to raise collective awareness and claim for more inclusive urban
transformations, since mapping places of memory can be a way to contest power and foster
collective action.

As presented in the beginning of the paper, there are some limitations in directly assimilating public
space to democracy. However, public spaces and the commercial spaces that surround them
conform places of memory, which can shape a subjective arena for democratic values, such as
inclusion, common identity and the sharing of common imaginaries. In Beyoglu, places of memory
have been transformed in many ways, not just in the physical space, but also in the collective
memory of citizens. On the one hand, they mediate a multiplicity of behaviors, actions and
encounters that shape identity values and promote inclusion. On the other hand, they are
increasingly under threat, manipulated by the forces that shape cities like Istanbul are driven by
private interests, which ‘are in a position to shape the city more and more after their own particular
needs’ (Harvey, 2013, p. 14). As a reaction to these forces, if there is some hope in claiming the
right to the city in Beyoglu, it should come from the collective memory, which might create the
necessary conditions for citizens to ‘change and reinvent the city’ according to their heart’s desire
(Harvey, 2013).


Acknowledgements

We are grateful to everyone who participated in our survey and interviews with their valuable
memories and stories. We would also like to thank Yasar Adnan Adanali and team of Center for
Spatial Justice for their collaboration in the research and the production process of the map.

References

Adanali, Yasar Adnan. 2011a. “De-spatialized Space as Neoliberal Utopia: Gentrified İstiklal
Street and Commercialized Urban Spaces.” Red Thread e-Journal 3 http://red-
thread.org/en/de-spatialized-space-as-neoliberal-utopia-gentrified-istiklal-street-and-
commercialized-urban-spaces/.

Adanali, Yasar Adnan. 2011b. “Reclaim Istanbul Urban Transformations , Spaces of Hope.”
Https://Reclaimistanbul.Com/2011/11/17/Gentrified-Istiklal-Street/.

Adanali, Yasar Adnan. 2011c. “The Reign of ‘Madness’ in Istanbul: Economies of Scale of
Urban Transformation.” TRIALOG 108 (1): 41–45.

Amin, Ash. 2008. “Collective culture and urban public space”, 4813. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13604810801933495

Atkinson David. 2005. “Kitsch geographies and the everyday spaces of social memory.”
Environment and Planning A 39: 521-540 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3866

Bloomfield Jude. 2006. “Urban Mindscapes of Europe.” European Studies 23: 45-61.
Amsterdam, New York.

Charter of Public Space. 2013. Biennial of Public Space. Instituto Nazionale de Urbanistica.
Rome, Italy

Cruz Sara Santos, Roskamm Nikolai and Charalambous Nadia. 2018. “Inquiries into public
space practices, meanings and values.” Journal of Urban Design. 23(6): 797–802 https://
doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1525289

Harvey, David. 2006. “The Political Economy of Public Space.” The Politics of Public Space:
17–34. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203390306

Harvey, David. 2013. “Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution.” Verso,.
London, UK

Harvey, David. 2014. “The Crisis of Planetary Urbanization.” Uneven Growth  : Tactical
Urbanisms for Expanding Megacities, edited by Pedro Gadanho, 1–10. New York:
Museum of Modern Art.


Keller, Bill. The Revolt of the Rising Class, New York Times, June 30, 2013, A23.

Kiygi, Gizem. “Beyoğlu: Yıkılmadım Ayaktayım Haritası”. Survey. 1 March 2018. https://
d o c s . g o o g l e . c o m / f o r m s / d / e /
1FAIpQLScsXcuT3mMSA539VolOsG7SyXTRaba3awGgbZAIUfLXolBfVw/viewform

Kuyucu, Tuna, and Özlem, Ünsal. 2010. “‘ Urban Transformation ’ as State-Led Property
Transfer : An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul” 47 (June): 1479–99.
doi:10.1177/0042098009353629.

Lambert, Rita. 2015. “Mapping for Environmental Justice: An Assessment of the Power of
Maps in Karachi's Informal Settlements.” Development Planning Unit - Working Paper
180, London, UK

Rolnik, Raquel. 2014. “Place, Inhabitance and Citizenship: The Right to Housing and the
Right to the City in the Contemporary Urban World.” International Journal of Housing
Policy 14 (3): 293–300. doi:10.1080/14616718.2014.936178.