Rethinking spatial inequality and urban transformation: Istanbul's

entertainment clusters

Mine Eder
Özlem Öz
Draft, please do not quote without permission

22nd IPSA World Congress, Madrid, 2012

There is a growing consensus that Istanbul has become a perfect example of a rapidly
“globalizing city” over the last two decades. Indeed, typical processes of globalization
such as increasing capital flows, commodification of urban real estate and subsequent
gentrification have become ever more visible throughout the city with the result of
inevitable contestations over urban space. Based on the assumption that space is a
social product, this paper focuses on how these changes represent increasingly spatial,
class and cultural divisions in the city, based on the transformation of Istanbul’s
entertainment industry in general and that of the entertainment cluster in Beyoğlu in
particular. Istanbul’s entertainment sector has been witnessing a boom in recent
decades, and the district of Beyoğlu hosts the oldest, largest and possibly the most
diverse entertainment cluster in Istanbul, which has been the target of an immense
urban transformation attempt in recent years, making it an ideal case to study different
dimensions of the issue. The paper in particular explores how and why spatial
divisions emerge, and what kind of contestations, rationalizations and resistance
strategies are at work in the course of this transformation.

Following the literature on the transformation of urban space, we develop two

arguments. One is that Istanbul’s entertainment sector, paralleling those in most of the
globalizing cities, have become increasingly differentiated along spatial and class
lines. The second is that despite the forceful standardization processes of neoliberal
globalization, the modalities through which this instance of “neoliberalism on the
ground” operates, the nature of the new spatial divisions and contestations (be they
among the small to medium entertainment establishments, encounters and rows with
municipalities, disputes over the permits to put open air tables on streets, or the
volume and length of music at night) all reflect the contingency and uncertainty of
such processes. A better understanding of the context, various actors, their
perceptions and resistance strategies, can, perhaps, help us deconstruct the myth of
“inevitable destiny” of global cities.

Keywords: Istanbul, urban transformation, contested space, global city, entertainment

sector, urban nightlife
Uneven geographical developments reflect the different ways in which different social
groups have materially embedded their modes of sociality into the web of life,
understood as an evolving socio-ecological system....Capitalist activity is always
grounded somewhere. Diverse material processes (physical, ecological as well as
social) must be appropriated, used, bent and re-shaped to the purposes and paths of
capital accumulation. Conversely, capital accumulaton has to adapt to and in some
instances be tranformed by the material conditions it encounters. Theory has to
address two issues: first, the rukles of capital circulation and accumulation need to be
specified and, secondly, a methodology must be established to track how those rules
get tangibly expressed and actively re-spahed through socio-ecological processes.
(Harvey, 2004:60)

“ We know who to take in our establishment, our reputation is at stake. The quality of
the clothes, their body language are all important. If you are single, wearing a T-shirt
or a sweatshirt, you will simply not be accepted” (A body guard in front of a high-end
restaurant-bar in Istanbul)

Istanbul has been undergoing significant economic and social restructuring over the
last decades. A complex interweaving of its own history and global determinations
has been instrumental in shaping Istanbul’s transformation, resulting in a city that is
more capitalist, and less inclusive and accommodating of the poor and the new
immigrants (Keyder, 2005b: 213). The city has become an economic powerhouse for
the country accounting for more than 30% of its GDP. The kind of urban restructuring
Istanbul has gone through since the mid-1980s is associated with a series of
transformations in local governance, reflecting the neoliberal goal of improving
Istanbul’s urban face, which resulted in a city surrounded by skyscrapers, big business
centres, and shopping malls (Potuoglu-Cook, 2006: 638). In this era, we see that the
mayor’s office in particular became very powerful, leading to the emergence of an
entrepreneurial local government, facilitating the planning and implementation of a
series of urban transformation projects. Although these mega projects are packaged
with fancy titles (e.g. History and Culture Projects), as stated by Candan and
Kolluoglu (2008: 15), “all of them have similar repercussions in terms of the increase
in the value of urban land, the dis/replacement of significant numbers of people, the
relocation of poverty, and dramatic changes in the urban and social landscape of the
city”. As a result of such transformations new spaces of urban wealth and poverty are
emerging in Istanbul, where urban transformation through a cleanup agenda is
portrayed as the solution that will enable a regular city look (Öz and Eder, 2012).

One major result of this restructuring has been rise of different entertainment clusters,
or “nightlife hubs” in the city. This article is an attempt to map out the social and
spatial mapping of the nightlife in Istanbul and elaborate on how these clusters or
hubs are marked with increased inequality and fragmentation of consumer markets
and “tastes.”

Following Harvey’s (2005: 66) “bottom up theorizing”, we suggest that the story of
Istanbul’s urban transformation over the last decade through the lenses of its urban

  2  
nightlife and entertainment industry can provide insights not only into “production of
“neoliberalism on the ground,” but also increasing spatial inequality in the city. In fact
Istanbul’s urban nightlife offers a microcosm of how inequalities on the basis of class,
space and consumption are produced and reproduced continuously.

Theoretical concerns

One key feature of urban neoliberalism, according to Harvey (1989), is that it favours
an entrepreneurial (as opposed to a managerial) approach to urbanism. Accordingly, a
growth-first approach to urban development is promoted and normalized in such a
way to justify the ideal of a ‘competitive city’. Despite this language of innovation
and competitiveness, however, the suggested urban policy repertoire is extremely
narrow, generating ‘projected spaces’ such as “glittering office and hotel atriums,
themed leisure zones, upscale shopping centres, gentrified housing, and aesthetically
enchanting cultural districts” (Macleod, 2004: 257).

The emergence of such landscapes of consumption is now typical in many cities, and
Istanbul is no exception. “Not-yet-transformed islands” in central Istanbul like
Beyoglu are on the top of the list of urban transformation projects, with the ultimate
purpose of turning them into a spectacle for tourists. One end result of this pervasive
neoliberal discourse on urban renewal and modernization that promotes the notion of
a hygienic city is that the undesirables of the urban landscape are forced to move out
to the outskirts. Another manifestation of neoliberalism in cities is related to the
development of cultural tourism, plus gentrification, which has been turning some
cities and city centers into museums of a kind, romanticized history being used to
encourage consumption (Wilson, 1995). A good example for this is the current state
of the city of Oxford described as a ‘film set’, a ‘spectacle’, always on display or
central Paris, where renovation forces out the poorly off to the outskirts (Öz and Eder,
2012).

One of the fundamental debates of the modalities of urban transformation has been
over the drivers of the social, political and economic changes particularly in the
global cities.

Modern cities were never only locations for industrial production, but have
long included arenas for cultural production and consumption (albeit
limited)… The Entertainment Machine signals the extension rather than
invention of many consumption motifs within the contemporary city…
However, the Entertainment Machine is characterized by more than the
quantitative increase in restaurants, shops and other cultural offerings.
Increasing elements of the city whose functions were considered instrumental
(use value) are being valorized through aesthetic concerns (sign value)…..
Sign values of objects are central to the logic of fashion, in which individuals
are encouraged to contemplate objects on their aesthetic dimensions. As
Benjamin (1939: 1990:22) recognizes early on, “Newness is a quality
independent of the use value of the commodity. It is the source of the illusion
of which fashion is the tireless purveyor.” (Llyod and Clark, 2001)

  3  
Following Walter Benjamin’s footsteps, it is impossible, we argue, to separate
esthetics from politics and from the political economy of the city. (Keith 2002)

It is easy to depict Istanbul, “as city of growth machine” to paraphrase Molotch

(1976) since both the city (along with the entire country) have been economically
growing with leaps and bounds. From towering skyscrapers to shopping malls, from
gated, gentrified housing clusters to “repackaging of cultural authenticity” for
commercial purposes, with intensive commodification of land, urban restructuring
along with associated displacements and dispossession of the poor, Istanbul reflects
most of the global trends in mega-cities around the world.

As Bridge and Watson (2002: 354) argue “cities become sites for the production of
images and the cultivation of spectacle” Hence the commodification of the city is
mediated through practices of cultural representation. The city starts “selling” its
desirability through marketing of consumption landscapes (Zukin, 1991). In fact, the
city becomes a “bundle of consumption assets” and the nightlife locations, bars,
entertainment spaces constitute a crucial part of this consumption assets. The material
and the cultural foundations of “urban lifestyles” have changed so dramatically,
Zukin (1998:825) argued that consumption can no longer be seen as a residual
category in urban political economy, as the “cities are no longer seen as landscapes
of production but as landscapes of consumption.” For her (ibid):

Attention to lifestyles has given rise to new, highly visible consumption

places, such as nouvelle cuisine restaurants, boutiques, art galleries and coffee
bars. It has also generated new, complex retail strategies, combining
advertising, sales, real estate development and entertainment. Finally,
attentiveness to urban lifestyles on the part of city governments has
encouraged city governments to ‘aestheticise’ or focus on visual consumption
of public space—although this has been accompanied by an increase in private
groups’ control over specific public spaces.

Yet, reading Istanbul’s entertainment industry merely through the lenses of

differentiation of life styles, tastes and consumption can also run into the risk of
demateralisation of city’s spectacular spatial transformation and fails to address
questions of inequality, segmentation, spatial separation among differing consumption
groupings (Hollands, 2002).

The entertainment industry in Istanbul offers an excellent laboratory to demonstrate

how the differences and inequalities become increasingly entrenched in the city.
Differences in any city is clearly inevitable, but as Bridge and Watson points out
(2002:356) these differences are “also embedded in relations of power. Thus
differences are constructed in, and in themselves construct, city life and spaces. They
are also constituted spatially, socially, economically sometimes leading to
polarization, inequality, zones of exclusion and fragmentation, and at other times,
constituting sites of power, resistance and celebration of identity”.

In order to understand such processes and spatial inequalities, Hollands and

Chatterton’s work on UK’s nightlife offers an interesting analytical framework. They
use the concept of “nightscapes” which refers specifically varied nightlife activities of
young adults in restaurants, nightclubs, pubs and music venues. Though their focus is

  4  
mostly the young people in the city, (which is also true for Istanbul but the age groups
can also vary depending on the location), they argue that in order to understand
nightlife, “ it is imperative to simultaneously explore who and what is involved in
producing nightlife spaces (i.e. designing, marketing, selling, property markets,
corporate strategies, etc.), who, what is involved in regulating them (i.e. laws,
legislation, surveillance, entrance requirements, codes of conduct), and who and what
is involved in consuming them (i.e. lived experiences, perceptions, stereotypes, etc.)
(Hollands and Chatterton, 2003: 5).

Developing on Hollands and Chatterton’s framework, we argue that understanding

Istanbul’s nightlife requires a close look at the political economy of the entertainment
industry, (how are the owners, what kind of capitalizations and corporatization is at
work, what are the processes of commodification of land as entertainment clusters and
designated nightlife hubs emerge?). But following Harvey, we suggest that space is a
constitutive factor in the making and unmaking of the entertainment industry. As
Harvey has argued very early on,

Space is neither absolute, relative or relational in itself, but it can become one
and all simultaneously depending on the circumstances. The problem of the
proper conceptualization of space is resolved through human practice with
respect to it…. The question ‘what is space’ is therefore replaced by the
question ‘how is it that different human practices create and make use of
different conceptualizations of space. (Harvey, 1973: 13)

Massey’s concept of space as a relational concept is also instrumental for our

purposes. Massey’s (2005: 9) proposes:

First, that we recognize space as product of interrelations; as constituted

through interactions, from the immensity of the global to the intimately tiny. ..
Second that we understand space as the sphere of the possibility of the
existence of multiplicity in the sense of contemporaneous plurality; as the
sphere in which distinct trajectories coexist; as the sphere therefore of
coexisting heterogeneity. Without space, no multiplicity, without multiplicity,
no space. Third, that we recognize space as always under construction.
Precisely because space is a product of relations-between, relations which are
necessarily embedded material practices which have to be carried out; it is
always in the process of being made: It is never finished, it is never closed.
Perhaps we could imagine space as a simultaneity of stories-so-far.

Hence we suggest that, we need to zoom on the spatial differentiation and

segmentation of the entertainment industry as a “constitutive”, not just a result of
corporatization and commodification of urban nightlife. As such Istanbul’s
entertainment clusters or nightlife hubs has unique spatial characteristics which allow
some clusters to become commodified much more rapidly while others require
significant displacements, dispossessions and face with immense political resistance.
The socio-spatial histories of the neighborhoods become very important as a result.

  5  
That is why we start our story in the next section with the history of Beyoglu, which
has been an entertainment hub of the city for a very long time. As the city’s
entertainment industry evolves and diversified, however, new neighborhoods became
rapidly commodified and significantly differentiated from one another. The section
that follows will address this corporatization and rising spatial differentiation in the
city. Section 4 then presents a reading of Istanbul’s entertainment clusters through the
lenses of life styles, tastes and consumption. This is followed by a discussion of the
ambivalent nature of contestations over space in Beyoglu, regarding the ongoing
gentrification and transformation pressures as well as emerging mechanisms for
resisting them.

Methodologically, we paid visits to more than 20 entertainment locales established in

the three main entertainment clusters of Istanbul; namely, the Bosphorus (Bebek-
Ortakoy coastline in particular), Nisantasi, and Beyoglu. Beyoglu interviews were
particularly important as this is still a “not-yet-fully transformed/commodified”
neighborhood with some potential for resistance. We conducted 20 plus interviews
with owners and managers of these entertainment locales as well as their personnel,
including bodyguards. We also conducted interviews with the representatives of the
relevant associations, including Beyder, Turyid, Beyoglu Guzellestirme and Istanbul
Chamber of Architects. Finally, we attended the night and day shifts of the inspection
team of a beverage company serving drinks to Istanbul’s entertainment places,
ranging from those night clubs attended by the jet society to dingy looking pavyons,
not only to observe Istanbul’s entertainment life but also to understand the
mechanisms used for its classification by the professionals working in the sector.

2. Historical Geographies of Istanbul’s Entertainment Sector: Beyoğlu and

Beyond until the 1980s

“Historically named as Pera, Beyoğlu had initially emerged as the resort area of the
city’s levanten (referring to those of Italian and of other Western origins) community
working in the banking district of nearby Galata. By the nineteenth century, it had
already become a prominent shopping and entertainment locale, housing shops,
patisseries, casinos, cafes, stage theatres, a skating palace and a circus along its Grand
Avenue” (Öz and Özkaracalar, 2010: 166).

Night clubs and pavyons were amongst the main places of entertainment in Beyoglu
until the late 1980s. Pavyons were mainly “male” places, at which there was usually
live music accompanied by food and drinks served late at night to the men attended,
escorted by the women working there if asked by the customers. It is estimated that
the number of pavyons in Beyoğlu was about 30 in the pre-1990 period. One of our
interviewees, an electrician located in Beyoğlu, stated that people running these
places used to hang around in the cafes and pubs in the district during the day time,
and buy lightening equipment from his shop in the evening, after which they headed
for their pavyons that typically got activated at around 10 p.m. Night clubs at those
times were more of an exclusive nature. One Bap Café, for example, used to serve
attendants from Istanbul’s movie sector, which was clustered around Yeşilçam Street
in Beyoğlu. In fact, it can be argued that Yeşilçam, from its emergence in the late
1930s until its collapse in the 1980s and especially during its golden age in the 1960s
and early 1970s, contributed towards and further reinforced the character of the
district of Beyoğlu as the main entertainment center of the city.

  6  
In the remaining parts of the city (e.g. Tarabya), casinos defined Istanbul’s
entertainment life, especially in the 1970s. Casino culture was largely underground in
that these establishments were informal businesses run by Italian style mafia’s who
had strong social networks. The owners of these casinos were typically members of
some notorious “çete”s, who mushroomed in the streets of rough neighborhoods such
as Kasımpaşa and Tophane. Still, casinos were entertainment places you could go
with your family. Those who used to attend the casinos could be grouped into two:
VIPs who preferred to sit in that section of the casino that offered a la cart menu, and
upper middle and middle class families who preferred the section that offered a fixed
menu (NTV, 2011).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, following the popularity of so called “bankers” (a
term used for those “entrepreneurs” offering incredibly high interest rates for lenders
at their own risk), the customer profile of casinos began to change in a way that the
middle class families distanced themselves from the exaggerated entertainment habits
of this newly emerging class, eventually deserting casinos altogether. This was the era
where “women only” matines were organized to attract middle class families back to
casinos (NTV, 2011).

Another triggerer of the decline observed in the “casino culture” was the collapse of
the movie cluster in Yeşilçam, itself triggered by the advent of TV. Importantly, all
this had occurred against a background of overall crisis of the Turkish economy and
an escalating political violence in the country, which had given rise to a public
perception of lack of security. Both of these factors, economic crisis and lack of
security, naturally discouraged outdoor-goings including casino and cinema
attendance; movie theatres and casinos closed one by one, and a growing number of
the surviving movie theatres converted their programmes to pornography, causing
many to pull away from the industry (Öz and Özkaracalar, 2011). Interestingly, when
Yeşilçam collapsed, several of its stars tried a singing career in the remaining few
casinos, mostly with little success. This can in fact be seen as the last attempts for
survival by the casinos, which however did not work, marking the end of the casino
era (NTV, 2011).

Meanwhile, banks and bankers of Galata (a district neighboring Beyoğlu) began to

relocate to Maslak in the 1970s, further contributing to the change observed in the
favored type of entertainment in the district of Beyoğlu, namely from casinos, night
clubs and pavyons to bars and cafes. Furthermore, by the late 1970s and early 1980s,
Beyoğlu had turned into a place where families were reluctant to visit because of the
reasons mentioned above, and the district had begun to be characterized by a
perception of lack of safety, with crowds attending pornographic films, with drug
dealers and pickpocketers increasing in number, especially in the darker back streets.

There were still some classy restaurants in the entertainment life of the 1970s
Istanbul, however, which were emerging slowly but surely. These were usually fish
restaurants such as “Faça” and “Kıyı”, followed by Hilton and Divan, the latter being
reputable hotel restaurants. But the genuine transformation started with Şamdan,
founded in 1975 in Etiler and considered a pioneer in this category, inviting other
elite, high-society restaurants (e.g. Ulus 29). Entrepreneurs such as Ahmet Çapa,
Mehmet Fadıloğlu and Tevfik Dölen followed suit and established Istanbul’s first

  7  
high class disco and dance clubs in the 1970s. This in turn paved the way for a list of
“elite families” started to be active in Istanbul’s entertainment sector for the first time,
changing the entire profile of the sector from the supply side.

3. Corporatization and gentrification of Istanbul’s entertainment industry in the

post-1980 era

During the 1980s, foreign chefs started entering the market, triggering yet another
transformation in the food and entertainment business in Istanbul from the supply
side. On the demand side, the city was not receiving significant number of foreign
tourists as it does now, but foreign chefs created the necessary know-how and
expanded tastes as well as quality cuisine now being offered in the city. During the
1980s, the sector was still largely informal and most of the establishments were semi-
registered, employing informal workers and avoiding taxes. In fact, throughout the
1980s, the entertainment sector in the city was still seen as a mechanism for “washing
the black market” i.e. formalizing different illicit, informal incomes through these
businesses.

When we come to the 1990s, we see that informality in the sector began to decline,
especially as the usage of credit cards became more common. The bureaucratic and
legal framework of the industry also changed, as well as the consumer profile with
increasing migration into the city, the result being an increase in the demand for
kebap houses and for türkü bars (bars with local folk music and themes). But too
many businesses, which were established with a spur of the moment and without the
necessary preparation, went under quite quickly during this period.

These changes were also affecting Beyoğlu as well as the initiatives taken by some
individual entrepreneurs. A triggering point that was influential in shaping the path
that was followed in recent decades in the Beyoğlu entertainment cluster was, for
example, the move of a well-known rock bar (Kemancı, namely) to the district in
1993. The success of this bar attracted others of the same kind to the area. A similar
pattern was repeated in the case of türkü bars, which also flourished in the district in
the mid-1990s.1 What also changed during the 1990s was the hotel industry in the city
with the help of five star hotels (appealing for foreign tourists in particular) such as
Çırağan (converted from a summer palace from the Ottoman period) and Swiss Hotel.
The 1990s were in fact the years of extravagant expenditures in nightclubs and bars
all around the city, mostly led by the financial elite and yuppies. Yuppies were willing
to dine out frequently in relative terms and began to demand better and higher quality
service. Trendy new bars and restaurants such as Sunset and others entered the
business during these years, as a result.2

                                                                                                               
1  Both rock and türkü bars have decreased in number in recent years however; now each numbering
approximately around 60 (out of a total number of 650 entertainment places in Beyoglu), according to
the Association of Beyoglu Entertainment Locales. The rest plays a large variety of live or DJ-run
Turkish, Western or ethnic music.)  
2  Still, people dine out (or used to dine out before the Greek financial crisis) twice a week in Athens;
this number was once a month in Istanbul. But this too began to change with increasing economic
stability, rising demand for tasty, classy establishments for socialization and most importantly with
rising income levels.  

  8  
Moreover, as more and more elite families entered the industry (and indeed it is the
sons and daughters of founders of these early establishments who have taken over the
old businesses and opened new venues), the reputation and prestige of the industry
began to change. The sector became increasingly professionalized, as these sons and
daughters went to hotel and restaurant management schools; university graduates
started attending chef schools and really started learning the business.

Table 1: FOOD AND DRINK ESTABLISHMENTS

Approximate Approximate Approximate
number of number of Revenue
establishments workers (USD)
Turkey 30,000 400,000 6 billion
Istanbul 15,000 225,000 3.5 billion
New York 35,000 400,000 21 billion
US 925,000 12,500,000 550 billion
Barcelona 11,000 150,000 11 billion
Source: TURYID (2004)

Table 2a: 100 TURYID members in 2004 (Turkish Liras)

Total Revenue 292,179,503
Non VAT taxes paid 10,478,614
VAT paid 16,195,899
Total number personnel employed 3,966
Source: Compiled by TURYID, from Defterdarlık Registrations, 2004

Table 2b: Total revenue and tax payments of all the bars, taverns, nightclubs,
cafes, restaurants, pastry shops, alcohol serving and non-alcoholic restaurants.
(2004 Turkish liras)
Total Revenue 2,383, 638,287
Total Non VAT taxes 49,260,933
Total VAT 65,070,191
Total tax paying establishments 10,276
Source: Compiled by TURYID, from Defterdarlık Registrations, 2004

The apparent increase in the foreign media coverage of Istanbul in the 2000s both
reflects and underlines this transformation in that more and more newspaper and
magazine travel sections have begun to cover Istanbul as a major entertainment and
palate scene. The city now offers an extensive variety of options when it comes to
food and entertainment. A foreign tourist would, for instance, come to Istanbul for a
few days, dine out in different locations, spend the night out visiting from one pub or
bar to another, all the while enjoying the magnificent views of the Bosphorus and the
city.

  9  
The Bosphorus and the sea line of the city have indeed become a huge attraction for
tourists. The share of tourists may, for instance, reach as high as 40% in the
Bosphorus entertainment locales in the summer time. Weddings on hotels located on
the Bosphorus are the new fashion, with foreign tourists having long, lavish,
extravagant weddings in these establishments. Between 2007-2011, we can easily see
that foreign tourists to Istanbul, whose numbers increased from 7 million to 11
million began to visit Istanbul for its entertainment appeal as well, rather than only for
seeing the classic tourist sites such as Sultanahmet and Topkapı.

This new type of tourism is actually seen as more lucrative, as tourists come again
and again for entertainment, which is not necessarily the case for seeing historical
sites. One of our interviewees states, “This is the “Spanish model” as the Spaniards
have moved towards a more sophisticated tourism through their cuisine. Istanbul’s
restaurant and entertainment industry is trying to do the same”.

Our interviewees nevertheless are of the opinion that the city’s performance in this
respect is in fact well under its potential. “If you sit in a restaurant in London, it
wouldn’t be surprising that the majority of the attendants are tourists. This is not the
case in Istanbul but we predict that this will change dramatically beginning from the
year 2012, since there are good signs in this direction”, in the words of an
interviewee. Istanbul is now considered as a “rising star”, rated very highly in
international media as one of the new hip cities in the world. There had been a
temporary boom in the mid-2000s, tourists from Europe visiting Istanbul for a long
weekend (so called Thursday-Sunday trips) just for wining and dining and to enjoy
the nightlife. This was short-lived however, lasted for a couple of years only, and
ended following a government decree regulating sound levels in nightclubs. But it is
expected that the new boom will be different. “This time we expect a sustainable
expansion in the share tourists capture in Istanbul’s entertainment life” stresses an
interviewee.

Meanwhile, foreigners’ appetite for investing in Istanbul’s entertainment sector has

also increased, and hot money is now flowing into the sector. Lehman Brothers, for
example, bought 40% of the Doors group before they went under. In a similar vein,
House Café has money from a Qatar investment group. Likewise, some Turkish
entrepreneurs active in the sector have recently showed interest in investing abroad
(in a variety of cities ranging from London to Baku), and the Turkish government has
recently launched the “Turquality project” that offers incentives for such
entrepreneurs.3

                                                                                                               
3  TURQUALITY  project  is  an  effort  to  support  various  brands  across  various  industries.  This  is  an  
attractive   project   since   it   provides   certain   tax   exemptions,   but   you   need   to   be   an   international  
brand.  Since  we  are  attracting  so  many  foreign  customers  (75%  of  our  customers  are  local,  25%  
are   international)   and   since   we   employ   so   many   people   in   this   labor-­‐intensive   sector   (more   than  
400,000   people   are   employed,   see   Table   1),   we   can   easily   make   the   claim   that   we   are   creating  
brand   recognition   and   contribute   to   the   overall   economy   of   Turkey.   And   this   sector   has   an  
enormous   potential   to   expand.   In   the   US,   for   instance,   with   550   billion   dollars   industry   is   only  
second   to   the   revenue   of   the   public   sector.   In   Turkey,   our   revenues   account   for   approximately  
1%  of  the  public  sector.    
 

  10  
Figure 1. Main Centers of Entertainment in Istanbul

There are four main locations where entertainment is concentrated in Istanbul:

Bosphorus (which provides the highest revenue, especially in the summer time),
Nişantaşı (which is like an upper scale open mall), Bağdat Street (in Kadikoy, which
is populated by trendy cafes and bars), Beyoğlu (which is considered the “soho” of
Istanbul). All attract their own clientele, whose tastes for food and/or music might be
different, the order above also reflecting their potential for revenue generation.

  11  
4. “Beyoglu does not fit into my definition of luxury”: Who defines the “cool”?

These entertainment clusters also reflect various taste segmentation and new forms of
differentiation. The differentiation among these clusters rarely corresponds, however,
to actual physical or material distinctions between the neighborhoods. Though the
view of the Bosphorus clearly differentiates the cluster in the city’s coastline, the
locations have very different marketing, packaging strategies that may not always
reflect the material advantages of the a given restaurant or entertainment location.
Lucca, a brasserie in Bebek, a fancy neighborhood by the seaside, for instance,
provides a good example. This is a boutique bar/brasserie, which does not have any
visibly outstanding physical characteristics, it does not have a view, it is located in a
busy street and the interior decoration is standard. Yet the owner of the locale has lost
money for four years just to attract the “right kind of clientele.” The right clientele is
not necessarily only rich, but is perceived as a “trendsetter”, “as cool” as driving the
latest model of Ferrari, and has the “classy, confident manners.” In short, the ability to
exclude has become a value in itself. In short, the degree to which a place can create
this “exclusive, clubby” image is exactly based on the “sign value”, a fashion claim,
which is quite disconnected from the “use value” of the location itself. Nevertheless,
the rich apparently rent Ferraris for the weekend just to be eligible to get into to
Lucca.

This urge for constant “newness” as trend setters in also evident in the frequency with
which these locations change their names and interior and exterior decorations.
“There are also 5,000 people which circulate around the city among these high end
entertainment places” said Ali Ünal, the manager of “Reina,” a spacious location has
the full coastline view and can accommodate up to 3000 people in one night during
the summer time. “These 5,000 people circulate around the city all night and would
like to see new things, new trends, the latest decorations and interior designs. They
are the ones who define the industry. That is why we have to change our interior
design every summer and spend at least one million dollars just for interior design.
Otherwise these 5,000 people get bored.” “I go to Italy just to see new designs and
fashions, visit bars and entertainment places to catch new ideas” explained Ersin
Süzer, the manager of Sortie, which is yet another locale in the coastline right next to
Reina.

Ironically this kind of “packaging” is which is entirely void of “use value,” these
illusional aesthetic and cultural claims seem to pay off in terms of real profits as well.
In fact, this constant renewing has become a necessity in the industry. “When they
feel that the place is declining in popularity, they immediately renew it, “without
waiting until the end, without letting its image go down. Besides, if you don’t renew,
you may get copied, others might imitate you, in which case the place loses its
originality, becomes standardized” (Sahin, 2012, interview). This has of course some
unintended consequences since it at the same time makes the sector very fragile; “we
are on the slippery grounds” says an interviewee; “things might change in the blink of
an eye” (Sahin, 2012, interview). None of the restaurants in Istanbul, for instance, can
get Michelin stars, because they constantly change names, get redecorated and are
opened under a new name: “İzzet Çapa, for instance, one of the oldest names in the
entertainment industry in Istanbul is notorious for this, as he closes Cahide, opens it
with another name “Al Jamal” one year, then relocates and opens it as “Nahide” next

  12  
year, with a different theme and concept. Despite the fragility and unpredictability,
this constant renewal the constant desire to define taste, “elite” entertainment in urban
space reinforcing exclusivity and desirability. The profitability then becomes
precisely based on the differentiation, “newness” and exclusivity.

This differentiation of entertainment clusters is very evident among the attitudes of

the owners and managers of the nightlife as well. Beyoğlu do not even enter into my
vocabulary in terms of luxury entertainment” said Süzer, “here on the Bosporus line,
no body would ever be interested in Beyoğlu.” The problem with Beyoğlu, explained
Büyükuğur, the co-owner of Istanbul Doors, a company that has grown successfully
over the last 10 years and established casual dining chain in the city, is that it does not
have enough space, it is very squeezed.” The problem with the bars and restaurants in
Beyoğlu, explained another interviewee, is that you cannot park you expensive car
right next to the restaurant, cannot show your girl friend that you are paying the valet,
30 dollars for parking.” Indeed, showing off wealth and the desire to show off wealth
has become a major feature of high-end entertainment industry. “You can rent a
corner in Reina for 2000 dollars which will include a bottle of drinks, blow up
champagnes and show off to your friends” explained Ali Ünal of Reina, “ that is what
they come here for.” And this too apparently pays off as well, “All the big business
deals are made here, international businessmen are brought here, they dine, wine and
close million-dollar business deals.” Even Nişantaşı is different, explained another,
“there, the summer is the low season, and there are only a handful of luxury
locations.”

Apart from different attitudes to different neighborhoods, different restaurants and

nightclubs differ in terms of their emphasis, and what they offer. In the quality
restaurant segment, the priority is on fine dining, though they typically offer a bar and
music as well. Whereas nightclubs typically act like a restaurant until 11 pm, after
which they are open as a nightclub. (Buyukugur, 2012, interview). There has been a
trend of combining fine dining and clubbing in recent years. This way, “customers
feel more comfortable” in the words of an interviewee “since they don’t have to
bother asking for bills, thinking about tips, parking problems etc. several times but
just once given that all facilities are concentrated in the same place” (Sahin, 2012,
interview)

Places offering fine dining exclusively and those combining fine dining and night
clubbing, however, do have a totally different image, as it is evident from the
statements of one of our interviewees, who tries to distance himself from those that
combine fine dining and clubbing: “Night club culture in Istanbul is a little bit like
Arabesque culture” says the owner of an high-end restaurant “it has different kind of
requirements, involves heavily drunk people, fights, murders, guns, etc. It is a risky
business. Customers create problems all the time. We do not want to be associated
with those. Press and celebrities are not necessarily important for us. We don’t want
that image, although ironically we most probably host more celebrities than many
nightclubs do. Our path is different. We prefer to be news for the journalists who
write articles for economy pages rather than for paparazzi” (Buyukugur, 2012,
interview).

How “exclusiveness” is reached and maintained in such places is of special concern.

The owner of a high-class restaurant has explained how they manage this delicate

  13  
issue as follows: “We do not have bodyguards but there are other ways. When we
opened our restaurant, some customers asked for raki, this wasn’t the type of
customer or the image that we wanted in our restaurant so we kindly said that we
didn’t serve raki. In a similar vein, when we opened our night club, we only played
house music, and we rejected request for other types of music, and unwanted
customers are discouraged in this way” (Buyukugur, 2012, interview).

Some fine dining restaurants and nightclubs along the Bosphorus have more direct
ways: “People may think that access to our place is hard because of bodyguards. It is
difficult to explain. Let’s say access criteria are based on “harmony” here. New
comers should not destroy the “atmosphere” of the place. You cannot really let four
guys to enter this place, or same sex groups more generally, especially if they are not
well dressed” (Sahin, 2012, interview) “We know differentiate very easily according
to the body language, the confidence level, and most importantly their dress”
explained one of the bodyguard, but the most important factor is for the manager to
back you up and trust your judgment. “If the manager starts running into financial
problems and forces you to accept some “unacceptable clients who are not dressed
properly” then you can pretty much understand that this place is on decline.” There is
indeed a high demand for bodyguards in the industry and a handful of “good
bodyguards” appear to circulate among these different high-end entertainment
locations. But “it is a risky business,” one bad event, one unfortunate dispute
combined with alcohol can be enough to ruin the reputation.

On the contrary, bodyguards are not that common in Beyoglu in that about 100 out of
650 entertainment locales are estimated to have bodyguards (some others have public
relations personnel, yet others vales helping customers to park their cars). Overall,
other access criteria used at the door parallel the findings in the literature (e.g. Rivera,
2010) to a large extent: women are more easily provided access on the grounds that
they are unlikely to create trouble and also that a place populated by women invites
less trouble; regular customers get easy access; others are evaluated by the
bodyguards on the basis of their self confidence, previous account of trouble creating,
clothing, cars, etc

It is not surprising that these “consumption clusters” in the entertainment industry

overlaps with the marketing strategies of various corporations catering to this industry
as well. The marketing manager of one of international beverage company explained,
for instance, that they have very specific classifications of the entertainment locations
in Istanbul. “In order to qualify to be a “A-diamond”, the hippest and the highest end
of the market, several criteria are used: a) a visit by an international star, celebrity or a
model b) a visit by a Turkish celebrity or celebrities, c) interior design d) how
frequently this interior design is changed e) the volume of beverage consumed f) the
quality of wine, service and the sound system in the location.4 A top and A-volume
locations have all these characteristics but might not have an international reputation
or a touristic attraction and if they have huge size and can host thousands of people at
the same time (often reaching 3000-4000 on weekend or peak seasons). There are also
so called “Image” locations, where the high society visits for visibility and to be seen
in paparazzi magazines and high-society journals. Those locations are in a category
                                                                                                               
4    One  big  irony  is  that  Reina,  depicted  an  A-­‐diamond  location,  also  had  a  marketing  

stand  of  this  beverage  decorated  with  diamonds!  

  14  
on their own. Finally, there are event places, often reserved months in advance and
becomes huge grand party for the circulating 5,000 people in the entertainment
industry. Clearly there is also B categories, or in-between places. But the fact that
attribution of quality and desirability to a place just because of a visit by an
international star, is in itself a proof of how illusions, desires of cultural consumption,
and successful packaging/marketing of locations complement the intensive
entrenchment of distinction and differentiation in the industry. As cultural, aesthetic
tastes and trends overlap with extensive corporatization and marketing, the
entertainment industry become ever more unequal on the nexus of class, space and
consumption.

Ambivalent Nature of Contestations over Space in Beyoglu: Any hope for an

inclusive public space?

The Cluster

Although there are other centers of entertainment in the city as noted above (such as
Kadikoy, Nisantasi, Ortakoy-Bebek-Arnavutkoy, Etiler, etc.), Beyoglu hosts the
oldest and largest entertainment cluster in Istanbul. The district of Beyoglu attracts
people from all over the city as well as tourists visiting the metropolis. According to
the Association of Beyoglu Entertainment Locales (Beyder), the average circulation
on Beyoglu’s Grand Avenue reaches an impressive 2.65 million people every day.
The total number of entertainment places in Beyoglu is around 2000 (this number is
estimated to reach 2400 if unregistered establishments are included), which
corresponds to more than half of the total in the whole city.

The entertainment cluster in Beyoglu consists not only of places offering drinks
and/or food as well as live or DJ music but also of related businesses; that is, those
that are linked to this core such as restaurants, cafes, and places that sell clothing and
accessories as well as those providing inputs to these places. It should also be noted
that there is further specialization in the Beyoglu entertainment cluster in that the
Nevizade Street and environs (the so called Flower Arcade) is associated with
traditional taverns, the Cihangir area with a rather Bohemian atmosphere and
Asmalimescit –whose value increased considerably after the live music club Babylon
was opened there in 1999- with relatively more upper scale entertainment locales. In
fact, Beyoglu is considered the “soho” of Istanbul with its vibrant nightlife as well as
the relaxed, uninhibited atmosphere associated with the district.

Trying to track down the changes in ownership structure of the locales and thus
following the pace at which the entertainment places in the district change hands
makes one feel dizzy. An interviewee has stated that they consider a place
“established” if it manages to survive in the district for five years. Regarding the
process of new business formation, fellow townmenship apparently plays a prominent
role. On the Nevizade Street, which is well-known for its traditional taverns as
mentioned above, for example, there are about 30 establishments around 20 of which
having owners/workers coming from the Black Sea town of Ordu. In a similar vein, a
considerable number of owners of türkü bars come from another Anatolian city,
Tunceli. This, amongst other things, reveals the importance of social networks in the
process of new business formation in the district of Beyoglu.

  15  
Pressures for Transformation

Amongst the three main entertainment clusters in Istanbul, Beyoglu comes third (after
the coastline on the Bosphorus and Nisantasi) in terms of its “quality”. We have heard
this ranking on “quality” case after case in our interviews. Apparently, the level of
quality and the average prices offered by the entertainment places in the district do
not suffice to consider Beyoglu “luxurious” enough, as evident in the following
statements of one of our interviewees: “If I open a restaurant in Beyoğlu, which is
very unlikely by the way, I couldn’t charge the right (meaning high) prices. We don’t
do much in Beyoğlu. A proper restaurant wouldn’t suit. It is not the right atmosphere.
Maybe one can think of opening a small café there.”

In fact, an association (named Beyoglu Guzellestirme ve Koruma Dernegi –

Association for Beautification and Conservation of Beyoglu) was established in 1984
by a group of high profile businessmen of Istanbul to “revitalize Beyoglu in a way to
attain its former glory”. How this might be accomplished is also clarified by the
Association, whose ideas are in harmony with those of the district municipality,
which has a specific plan for the transformation of Beyoglu towards this ideal.
Accordingly, one of the ways for Beyoglu to attain its former glory is to make use of
empty historical buildings in the district, the upper floors in particular. This urge for
“vertical commodification” is also associated with the so called “Nisantasi make-up”
plan for Beyoglu, which refers to renovating those empty buildings (The Association
is of the opinion that if the current owners do not have the means to do it themselves
or there are too many owners of a single historical building making it hard to come up
with an agreement for renovation, the state should then intervene and take over the
task). “They have to be renovated”, says one of our interviewees, “otherwise, they
will remain as they are: ugly, dirty and empty”.

Other means to upgrade the image of Beyoglu include brightening the darker streets
and encouraging “high quality” places to replace lower quality ones in the district.
These two issues, safety and entry of high quality brands into Beyoglu, are indeed
very much emphasized in the interviewees we conducted with the representatives of
the Association. What they have in mind regarding how this is going to happen can be
exemplified by the case of Mango, according to an interviewee: “Mango opened up a
store in Beyoglu, which ranked number one in the world in terms of sales. This in turn
invited other brands of the same caliber to this area.”

The upper floors of the buildings are of relevance here again, since “the quality of a
place is directly linked to who lives there”. The Association hopes and believes that
the popularity of Beyoglu as a location will increase in the near future since its
magnetic nature and improved image will attract those in the upper class to Beyoglu
eventually. There are already signs in this direction in the skyrocketing real estate
prices in Beyoglu, which in fact increased almost tenfold in the last four years,
according to the Association. Noise (from bars, cafes and shops) and smell (from the
restaurants) are two other “polluting” factors in Beyoglu that are targeted by the
Association which believes that street musicians also need some “upgrading”: “they
shouldn’t look like beggars but rather like real, “high quality” artists”.

  16  
The same reasoning is extended to cinemas in Beyoglu as well, which, according to
the Association, have failed to renew themselves: “They are old and filthy. That’s
why they cannot earn money here. People prefer cinemas in shopping centers, where
they can shop and dine before or after seeing a movie in modern multiplex theaters,
without leaving the premises, without having parking problems. It is a quite
comfortable, hygienic way of entertainment,” says the head of the Association. He
further argues that these transformations are inevitable, they are surely going to
happen, as they happened in all “civilized” countries. These changes are expected to
bring about corporatization of entertainment business in Istanbul, nationally and
internationally. In fact, this trend has already started, as evident from ongoing urban
transformation projects and rising rents: “An important sign of transformation of
Beyoglu in the way that we aspire is the entry of foreign investment funds. This
increased considerably in recent years, especially in real estate”, the Association
reports.

Figure 2: A Caricature that depicts the Grand Avenue (Istiklal Street) in Beyoglu as a
shopping mall

In a similar vein, what the Municipality has in mind for Beyoglu, according to an
interviewee, is to make it a district mainly hosting touristic boutique hotels and high
class entertainment locales serving a distinguished national and international clientele.
Meanwhile, small establishments in particular can easily be given up. When Beyder
demanded a decrease in the “entertainment tax” since it would be hard for smaller
places to afford, for example, the response of the Municipality was negative, which
meant in effect that smaller establishments are let to go bankrupt. “In previous years”,
says an interviewee, “it was perfectly possible for three fresh graduates to join forces
and establish a small place in Beyoglu or for a farmer to sell his/her livestock or land
and become a partner in one of the established places. Nowadays, this kind of
endeavors has increasingly become futile”.

Resistance Mechanisms, Limits and Possibilities: “Can Streets Be Ours”?

Running a business in the entertainment district of Beyoglu has indeed become

increasingly difficult in the last seven years with toughening regulations (e.g. the

  17  
above mentioned “entertainment tax” -which is challenged by Beyder on the grounds
that it is hard to justify why you need to tax people for their entertainment and that it
is unfairly charged as a fixed amount that needs to be paid by all places regardless of
their size- increased from 6.90 TL per month as of February 2005 to 150 TL per
month in March 2005 and to 450 TL per month in April 2005), according to an
interviewee, who sarcastically claimed that “all problems get solved if you speak
Japanese”, meaning you need to know “their” language, which is hard and
demanding.

Arbitrariness in the application of the relevant regulations in particular seems to be

the real cause of the problem. In fact, it is argued that it is this arbitrariness in the
form of fuzzy requirements, which enables the authorities to play the game in their
terms, giving them both an edge and flexibility while applying the rules. In the words
of an interviewee, “the authorities do not prefer you to fulfill all your obligations.
They do not like it if you do everything according to the book. They much prefer you
to have failed to satisfy several of their requirements”, which enables them the needed
“fuzzy areas” to maneuver. There is then room, for example, for negotiations that
eventually increase the amount of extra payment that you need to make them in the
form of sartli bagis (conditional donation) to complete the necessary legal procedures
when, for instance, granting permission for opening a new entertainment place in the
district.

Figure 3: Municipality Police Removing Tables on the Asmalimescit Street, Beyoglu

Source: www.pressturk.com, retrieved on the 26th of September, 2011

A striking example regarding the vulnerability of the cluster vis a vis the regulatory
environment in general and the actions of the Municipality in particular is the recent
attempt to remove street tables belonging to entertainment establishments in the
district. Not only the entertainment places but all Beyoglu lost business as a result.
About 3000 people lost their jobs in a month’s time. It is quite possible, for instance,
to see that after 10 minutes you arrive, comes the zabita (the municipality police)
asking for the removal of the chairs and tables that you sit on the street, leaving all

  18  
customers standing there with food and drinks at their hands, as it happened to us
during an interview in the district. “Would these customers come here again?”, asked
the owner of one of those places, “No” is his reply to his own question. Many regular
customers indeed moved to other alternative entertainment centers in the city such as
Nisantasi or Ortakoy. Now, after ten months have passed since the ban, some
establishments (those who “upgraded the look of their facades” Radikal, 25 May
2012) have gradually begun to be granted permission to have a limited number of
tables on the street again. Specifically, they are allowed to occupy 70 cm of the street
(fitting for one table). Nevertheless, the ban is still valid for many streets in the
district. Beyder predicts that even if the matter is totally resolved today, it would take
at least six months until everything goes back to “normal”.

This attitude, which is symbolized by the statement “We don’t really want those who
come here for “beer and chips”, however, does not go uncontested. Different
platforms have emerged to resist commodification and gentrification pressures in
Beyoglu as well as in nearby Tarlabasi (Tarlabasi is a district next to Beyoglu, whose
residents –mostly from the poorest part of the population, including those of Roma
and Kurdish origin- are forced to leave the district which is planned to be gentrified)
and in the greater Taksim area (Taksim is the heart of the city of Istanbul, and the
Municipality is planning a comprehensive urban transformation project for the area
that includes, among other things, a giant shopping center that will be located in the
park next to Taksim Square). These platforms have recently joined forces with similar
kind of organizations mushrooming throughout Istanbul to resist ambitious urban
transformation projects ongoing in other parts of the city and formed a group called
“Kent Haraketleri” (“Urban Social Movements”).

Meanwhile, several organizations, Istanbul Chamber of Architects in particular,

continue to challenge these urban transformation projects via lawsuits. We might
consider the project aiming to build the replica of Emek, one of the oldest movie
theatres in Istanbul (in fact, it was the heart of Istanbul’s historical film cluster in
Yesilcam), on the upper floors of the building that it now resides (after its renovation
of course, which will convert the building to yet another shopping center) as a typical
example of the urge for what we called “vertical commodification” in Beyoglu. Land
is too precious in this district to be occupied by a movie theatre, which, apart from
being “filthy” and “old-fashioned”, blocks any possibilities for vertical
commodification. The case of Emek is indeed symbolic of the kind of transformation
the city of Istanbul has been going through in recent decades in that a fake, glittery
replica is preferred for a genuine historical theatre.

This choice perhaps cannot be fully explained by a profit motive only; although
prospects for revenue generation by such projects apparently form a top priority for
the authorities. There is also the “beer and chips” concern in that as mentioned above
the district of Beyoglu is envisaged to change in such a way that its current rank as the
third in number amongst the entertainment centers of the city in terms of “quality” is
upgraded. And this is to be done by the help of the so called “Nisantasi make up”,
which in effect means that those coming to Beyoglu for a beer and chips will be
discouraged and forced to go somewhere else. Beyoglu will as a result be upgraded in
terms of quality and get rid of its Soho like image; hence, will lose its character,
sharing the destiny of some other historical centers of globalizing cities.

  19  
Although resistance mechanisms are limited given that even the strongest lawsuits are
lost due to particularistic changes in regulations blocking the possibilities for
contestation and sometimes benefiting or targeting specific areas and/or companies,
and that a combined “urban social movement” idea is very new in Istanbul and hence
it is far from being a well organized, solid movement, we believe that there is still
hope for an inclusive public space, as long as we recognize and underline that “when
people fight over land, it is not just over the resources for physical survival that they
fight, but also over the resources for social existence as persons in meaningful human
communities” (Verdery, 1996: 88). As we have demonstrated in the case of the
relocation of bazaars in Istanbul elsewhere (Öz and Eder, 2012), and in the story of
entertainment cluster in Beyoglu here, there is nothing objective and inevitable about
these projects as such (Jessop, 2002; Parker, 2009), and most commodification and
neoliberalization stories are contingent and contested, involving a series of constant
political compromises and renegotiation over space, like the case of street tables in
Beyoglu exemplifies.

Concluding Remarks: Dark Side of “Istanbul by Night”

As in most major cities around the world, the city of Istanbul is undergoing a series of
commodifications and corporatization processes. The entertainment sector also
reflects these processes of embracing and accommodation of the global and national
corporate world. As more and more money is being poured into the industry, as the
number of restaurants, bars and locales increase and proliferate over the city, all
hoping be the flavor of the month,” smaller, local nightlife spaces appear to be
squeezed on a continuous basis.” (Chatterton and Hollands, 2001:113) As Harvey has
predicted in the case of many major cities, Istanbul runs the risk of becoming a
product of “serial reproduction” losing its unique characteristics, its diversity.

Most importantly, however, the transformation in the entertainment industry in

Istanbul exemplifies a process through which inequality on the basis of class, cultural
taste and most importantly space become evermore entrenched in the city. The case of
the entertainment industry in Istanbul illustrates how the city, as in many other cities
around the world, has become increasingly corporatized and “packaged.” These
trends have intensified the clustering of the industry in different neighborhoods,
Bosporus coastline, Nisantasi and yet-to be fully transformed and much contested
Beyoglu.

Also alarming has been ease with which the material distinctions based on class and
economic wealth has been complemented with intense desire to be culturally, status-
wise “distinctive” and exclusive. So much so, exclusivity itself has turned into an
asset in itself. Often illusionary distinctions along the lines of ever changing
definitions of the “cool,” extravaganza, the desire to show-off wealth to others,
passion for luxury has all complemented these material distinctions. These cultural
and aesthetic concerns coupled with the desire of a what Mike Davis called
“neoliberal dreams” (the desire to create your own ghetto where you have minimal
contact with humanity and mingle only with your own kind), has become the main
feature of entertainment industry.

As the city becomes ever more gentrified, as its quiet neighborhoods turn into glitzy
fake replicas, into tourist attractions, the mixed, diverse neighborhoods with open

  20  
public space and access become ever more squeezed. But as the case of Beyoglu
indicates, not all battles are lost when it comes to the commodification and
privatization of urban space. The neoliberal urban governance, though a powerful
trend, has met with significant resistance and claims of multiple rights to the city. And
as such, Beyoğlu is a crucial case not only in terms of manifesting the intense
pressures for neoliberal transformation but also prospects for resistance and
alternative, inclusionary urban space.

Contestations over the Beyoglu and the entrenched inequalities in the entertainment
industry are grim reminders that the LaFebvre’s “right to the city,” where the urban
inhabitants have right to the urban life, its full usage of its moments and its places has
become ever more crucial in the context of globalizing cities. Because after all, as
Harvey has suggested, “the right to the city is a right to make and remake cities and
ourselves.” (Harvey, 2008)

  21  
References

Amin, A. 2007. “Rethinking the urban social” City 11(1): 100-114

Bridge, G., and Watson, S. “Retexturing the city” City 5(3): 350-362.

Chatterton, P., and Hollands, R. 2003. Urban Nighscapes: Youth Culture, Pleasure
Spaces and Corporate Power. London: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Harvey, D. 2005. Spaces of neoliberalization: Towards a theory of uneven

geograhical development. Hettner Lecture 2004, Franz Steiner Verlag, Volume 8,
University of Heidelberg.

Harvey, D. “Right to the city” New Left Review 1-15.

Hollands, R., and Chatterton, P. 2003. “Producing Nightlife in the New Urban
Entertainment Economy: Corporatization, Branding and Market Segmentation”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(1): 361-285.

Hollands, R., and Chatterton, P. 2002. “Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing,

regulating and Consuming Youthful Nightlife City Spaces” Urban Studies, 39(1): 95-
116.

Hollands, R. 2002. “Divisions in the Dark: Youth Cultures, Transitions and

Segmented Consumption Spaces in the nighttime economy” Journal of Youth Studies
5(2): 153-171.

Jayne, M. 2006. Cities And Consumption London: Routledge.

Keith, M. 2008. “Walter Benjamin, Urban Studies and the Narratives of City Life”, in
A Companion to the City (eds G. Bridge and S. Watson), Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Oxford, UK.

Llyod, R., and Clark, T. N. 2001. “The City as an Entertainment Machine”, in Kevin
Fox Gotham (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment (Research in Urban
Sociology, Volume 6, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.357-378

Molotch, H. 1976. “The City as a growth machine” American Journal of Sociology

82(2): 309-330.

NTV 2011. Tarih Konusmalari: Gazino Gunleri NTV, 11 December 2011.

Öz, Ö., and Eder, M. 2012. “Rendering Istanbul’s Periodic Bazaars Invisible:
Reflections on Urban Transformation and Contested Space” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 36(2): 297-314.

  22  
Öz, Ö., and Özkaracalar, K. 2010. Path Dependence, Lock-in, and the Emergence of
Clusters: The Case of Istanbul’s Film Cluster. In G. Schreyögg and J. Sydow (Eds.)
The Hidden Dynamics of Path Dependence: Institutions and Organizations,
Hampshire, UK and New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161-177.

Radikal, 2012. Beyoglu Masasina Kavusuyor, (Nuriye Dogu), 25 May 2012.

Rivera, L. 2010. “Status Distinctions in Interaction: Social Selection and Exclusion at

an Elite Nightclub” Qualitative Sociology 33: 229-255

Zukin, S., 1998. “Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and standardization in spaces of

consumption” Urban Studies 35(5-6): 825-839.

Zukin, S. 2011. “Reconstructing the Authenticity of Place” Theory and Society 40(2):
161-165.

Zukin, S. 2008. “Consuming Authenticity: From outposts of difference to means of

exclusion” Cultural Studies 22(5): 724-748.

Zukin, S. 2008. “David Harvey on Cities” in David Harvey, A Critical Reader, Noel
Castree & Derek Gregory (eds.) Blackwell, Oxford.

Zukin, S. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley,

California: University of California Press.

  23