Public Istanbul

Front matter

UrbanStudiesi

FRANK ECKARDT, KATHRIN WILDNER (EDS.)

Public Istanbul

PART 2 EXPERIENCING ISTANBUL Introduction: Spaces of Everyday Life

Public People.

Temporary Labor Migrants in Nineteenth Century Istanbul

The Public and the Private.

Discourses and Identifications among Vanlı Women in Istanbul

ANNA GRABOLLE-CELIKER

Creating New Spaces, Claiming Rights.

West African Immigrants in Istanbul Koray ÖZDIL

Whose Space, Whose Culture?

Struggle for Cultural Representation in »French Street« of Istanbul

Sabiha in »Public Istanbul«

FERIDE CIGEKOGLU

Subjects that don’t count. Places that are not important.

5 Artistic Approaches

Notes on Contributors

Preface

Since ancient times, Istanbul has been one of the most important cities on the European continent. In the 207 century, urban transformation processes marked the metropolis. As a result of intense internal migration from the 1950's to the end of the 20" century, the city grew to an official population of 12 million, with inhabitants on both sides of the Bosporus. In spite of master plans to control the city's development, the growth is spontaneous and informal. At the same time, as an industrial and service city, the metropolis is a subject of national politics and global competition. The simultaneous coexistence of these disparities has affected the development of urban space in Istanbul. Therefore, in urban space, cultural conflicts about the definition of locality and identity are manifested and materialized.

In contemporary social and cultural science, urban space is no longer conceived as an objective or static container for social practices, but as a complex analytic category. Cities as complex structures are combinations of localized places, institutions and actors, activities, imaginaries and narratives. Urban space is analyzed as a social process that is based on spatial structures and space constructing activities. Urban spaces are continuously (re)constructed in planning processes, as well as in everyday practices. In this sense, the existence of public space — where spatial structures are materialized and social interactions take place — is a central characteristic of »urbanity«. It is temporarily used for different utilizations and has differing attributions of meaning. It is thus a heterogeneous space of negotiation, materially and discursively disputed.

In the first decade of the 21* century, on the brink of entering the European Union, Istanbul is a place of exemplified urban transforma-

KATHRIN WILDNER/FRANK ECKARDT tion. The significance of public spaces is becoming a popular topic in research and discussion about Istanbul’s development and modernization. In research projects public space is analyzed not only concerning its shape as architectural design projects but as a social and political space. The discussions reflect the effort to overcome polarizations and dichotomist attributions like the »historic« and the »contemporary« city, »tradition« and »modernity«, »periphery« and »center«, the »local« and the »global«. The outcome of new discourses arising on migration, social exclusion, or the definition of the Other, are propositions for built environments that would create the physical conditions necessary for »new public spaces« as well as »public spheres«, where different cultural groups would have access and representation.

With its layers of the past, present, and future, Istanbul is an appropriate city to study the contemporary urban condition: the constitution of public spaces and spheres. Nevertheless, while more attention has been drawn to Istanbul’s metropolitan life, profound studies on the complex cultural and urban situation are still rare.

In 2006 — succeeding research projects about other metropolis and the production, perception and appropriation of urban space — our intention was to initiate an interdisciplinary discussion with theoretical approaches and case studies on Istanbul. As urban scholars — with so far limited knowledge on Istanbul — we organized the conference »Public Istanbul — Spaces and Spheres of the City« at Bauhaus University, Weimar (19* and 20" January 2007). The conference had an interdisciplinary focus, with contributors from fields of geography, ethnography, history, cultural studies, architecture, and urban planning. We invited young urban scholars and well-known experts from Turkey and Germany, encouraging a dialog between different approaches and disciplines. Finally the conference was organized along four main axes of research: »Divided Istanbul« — dealing with socio-demographic aspects in a fragmented urban space, »Experiencing Istanbul« — an ethnographic and artistic look at everyday practices, »Planning Istanbul« — concentrating on the typology of public spaces, larger city planning projects, and new forms of urbanism, and finally »Representing Istanbul« — (historical) investigations about the image of the city and its reflection in cinema and art.

This book is an outcome of the conference, a selection of the perspectives and papers, which represent interdisciplinary approaches to urban transformation and everyday life in Istanbul as a globalizing metropolis. The collection of articles includes different levels and degrees of research experience, a combination of scientific and subjective ap-

PREFACE proaches, various means of data collection, methodology and analysis, and different writing genres.

The volume is divided into two parts. The first part concentrates on geographical and sociological perspectives. Aspects of urban planning are also presented, and public space is analyzed in a spatial and political sense. Istanbul’s urban organization of what we call the »public sphere«, has undergone substantial change, like many other cities. Unlike other cities in Europe, however, fast growth has challenged urban planning and local politics in a yet-unknown way. The question then is what the term »public« still means in Istanbul under contemporary conditions.

The second part takes a closer look at everyday life, investigating specific sites, social interaction, and individual biographies. Focusing on the micro level of local places and everyday practices, the historic and ethnographic case studies in this part give insight to possible interpretations of public spaces as arenas for production and reproduction of the urban.

The book represents fragments of contemporary discourses on Istanbul. It is not meant to be complete; there are many topics which could not be mentioned in the span of this work as well as many more scholars, planners, and scientists working on Istanbul and public space. We understand this compilation as a first step towards further discussions and exchanges between disciplines, knowledge, and local perspectives on the multi-dimensionality of urban public spaces in Istanbul.

Kathrin Wildner and Frank Eckardt, Mai 2008

PART 1 CONTESTED SPACES

Introduction: Public Space as a Critical Concept. Adequate for Understanding Istanbul Today?

Bridges have tremendous impacts on cities. They are defining geographic markers lending its inhabitants a sense of orientation. In Istanbul, especially the famous Galata Bridge has shaped our perception of the city. The bridges crossing the Bosporus are not only vital conductors of traffic between the European and Asian side of the city, moreover, they offer a perspective, which defines the city. To understand the city without these symbolic elements would leave Istanbul’s sense of urbanity devoid of its essence.

Imagination is one of the most powerful aspects of urban life (Pile 2000). As the American sociologist Robert E. Park once said, cities are a »state of mind«. In the same way we can understand Istanbul as being lived by its metaphorical landscape which is? Most visible in the built environment, but is also expressed in less visible arteries of the sciences and arts. Istanbul offers a rich variety of symbolic spaces, which are perceived as emotional, abstract and concrete places. In daily life, this complexity often remains unrecognized, as human beings respond to encounters and various situations, according to their definition of them.

In this way, Istanbul as one city falls apart as it delivers different spaces for tourists, rural migrants, global entrepreneurs, and socially stratified inhabitants. The function of public places in the different phases of city development seemed always to be that they offer some kind of interference between separated parts of Istanbul. In the past, the Galata Bridge captured a special quality, as the bridge was not only a place for traffic but also a place for markets. People went to the bridge to buy and sell, to meet, to perceive the city and the others; they went there to be there. Nowadays, people still want to have a view to the Bosporus bridges, although the bridge is no place to stay.

The example of the bridges shows that places can offer important and often unexpected meanings for our understanding of the city. Perhaps in contradiction with their intended functions, bridges are places in which perspectives are gathered: perspectives of different people, strangers and natives alike, creating a common understanding of what is worth looking at. It creates positive icons in a diverse, complex, and often difficult city life. In this way, a subtle manner of exchange between individuals from various backgrounds shapes a »sphere« of Istanbul with different aspects. In the first place, this creates an »atmosphere« which might not be sensed by all, but it can be an important factor to many people in their perception and experience of the city (Böhme 2006). Its social significance, however, lies in the structure that it gives to our perception and which is as a point of reference in the urban discourse with others about it. The planed reality of Istanbul and the constantly changing urban geography of this metropolitan area, however, makes it necessary to distinguish between places of private and public meaning. This is a process in which places become public by making them a symbolical space (Watson 2002).

From an analytical point of view, examining public spaces in Istanbul remains a confusing task. In our observations, we are frequently guided both by different perceptions and the need for a concept that captures the particularity of Istanbul. There are different ways to understand, observe and produce public spaces, but the meaning society gives to the spaces and the relationships society establishes with these spaces are crucial. Istanbul’s position at the border of Europe and Asia, not only render it difficult to apply complex terminologies such as »European city« or »Middle Eastern city«, as »global city« or »mega-city«, but also overshadow general understandings of the relationships between space and society.

Max Weber’s theoretical distinction between European and Asian cities, in which he characterized the »European city«, by its ability to bridge differences among social groups through public encounters, has guided our concept of European cities (Weber 2000). If we understand the »public space« as a composition of concrete place and a specific form of social life, that what might be called the »sphere« of the public, than the empirical difference often connected to its categorization are questionable. As historians have made clear, the European city never fully embodied this ideal concept, nor is the Asian city free of a public

INTRODUCTION sphere (Bruhns/Nippel 2000). Many of Habermas’ observations regarding the emergence of the public sphere in British, French, and German modern society since the 19th century is also true for Middle Eastern societies. As Jakob Skovgard-Peterson states: »As in Europe, the public sphere in the Middle East ideally comprised everyone. In practice it was quite exclusivist« (2001: 13).

If these ideal concepts are taken for granted, however, the debate regarding the significance of public space in Istanbul is in danger of being misleading and fruitless. Perspectives on Istanbul as perceived through a »European« or »Middle East/Asian« lens may stand in the way of an analysis that considers recent developments in Istanbul. Questions such as to what extent the city is still »European« and how the city is incorporated into the Middle East are focal points of many discussions and debates concerning Istanbul today. Nonetheless, the term »European City« may be helpful if it is applied to the discourse in a sociological way, excluding political, cultural, historical, and economical contexts. This narrowed view which neglects the nexus between spaces and of society — as described by Weber, Arendt, and Habermas — has become prominent in many planning discourses:

»Allee, boulevard, campo, and piazza — nothing defines the picture of the European city and its public space like these spaces. To walk as a flaneur, to communicate, to meander like a cosmopolitan through the city, to be relaxed in the rushing city life — nothing characterizes the image of the urbanites more than their behaviour in the public spaces.« (Selle 2004: 131)

Taking a closer look on Istanbul and its spaces requires a selective perspective on what might be qualified as »public«, being both place and sphere. There are particular subjects to be found in Istanbul which are beyond the overstressed concepts discussed so far. Similarly, as a consequence of globalization, the profound reshaping of Istanbul’s cultural dimensions has resulted in the establishment of new patterns in cross boarder public encounters (Oncii 1997).

New conceptual approaches that have the ability to contend with Istanbul’s sensitivities are called for. Contributors to this book grapple with such approaches in an effort to understand and analyze the changing character of Istanbul. Implicit questions are present in the attempt to understand as much as possible of what recently becomes important in the development of Istanbul and what still is significant from its divers history as city between East and West, Christianity and Islam, modernity and tradition. While Istanbul is a city, which for decades has attracted people from rural areas in pursuit of a better life, the city has more recently been following a pattern of growth incomparable to any other city in Europe. Here, the mechanisms of the social construction of space by public spheres can be traced clearly. By changing the social labeling of those places occupied by the new settlers (Ozbakay 2006) and the conflicted pattern of »insiders« and »outsiders«, well known in modern cities since Elias and Scotson’s famous study (1990) — has become the main logic for Istanbul’s new social geography.

The significance of the public is then altered, challenged, and maybe even lost. This is true, at least if we continue to think of Istanbul 's public spaces in a way that relates it to particular places. Again, the shift in the former construction of public places to Istanbul’s current less tangible contemporary meaning and generation of »public« might become easier to understand if we return to examples of the bridges. In the past, the Galata Bridge was a locally well-known and an often frequented place where the relationship between presence and perception was highly interrelated with one another. Today, in the global era, the Bosporus bridges are common public sphere for everybody. They are symbolic spaces which must be perceived against the background of Istanbul’s fragmented metropolitan area which lacks places that give expression to the new (automobile) mobility of the city, its fast growth, and new spatial orders.

This might lead to the conclusion that »abstract«, »far«, »social«, and »political« elements in public spaces are increasingly important in what is captured by the ambivalence of the term »public«. In the same vein, the re-consideration of space has been the main debate in the urban studies discipline during the 90s. With the emergence of a post-modern geography (which is no longer making difference between description, empirical evidence and analysis) stated in its most radical positions that the dimension of the particular »urban« seems to be disappearing. As a result, urban concepts now need to be regarded against the city’s regionalization (Eckardt 2005). Istanbul with its past period of hyper-growth appeared to support this line of argument. Already, the recognition of the fact that Kemalist state architecture supported a decline in the significance of the local public (Bozdogan 1994) questions to what extent the term »public« is related to the spatiality of Istanbul.

It is imperative that the conceptualization of public space in Istanbul takes discourses, political and planning regulations and prerogatives, imagined and perceived dimensions of the public, into sincere consideration. In others words, the »sphere« of public Istanbul is no longer only a matter of »atmo«-sphere; it has instead become the crucial point of analysis.