Models of Organization of Cultural Institutions

IMT Lucca, MDCH - XXV Cycle

Evinc DOGAN

evinc.dogan@imtlucca.it

Revitalizing the City: Istanbul as European Capital of Culture

Abstract

Cities compete with each other in (re)producing and promoting their urban heritage and
symbolic assets for tourism - a process that also generally implies a significant degree of
urban transformation. European Capital of Culture (ECOC) process is a designation by the
European Union for a period of one year during which the city is given a chance to showcase
its cultural life and heritage. Cities where have been awarded as Cultural Capitals of Europe
and how they are promoted to the public with their outstanding cultural properties constitute a
good basis to determine issues related to urban heritage, urban transformation, culture politics
and continuity in terms of socio-cultural and socio-economic aspects. The transformation does
not only occur on the urban level but also occurs on the national and transnational level. The
designation of Istanbul as one of three very different capitals of culture (Essen and Pécs) for
2010 reflects the changing nature of the European Union’s space and identity and the
evolving capital of culture program. This essay examines meaning and importance of the
Capital of Culture Program and then studies Istanbul as the European Capital of Culture in
regard to its ability to implement long-term urban changes and initiate transformation of the
built environment.

Keywords: ECOC, cultural heritage, urban transformation, urban governance,

sustainability

1
 Introduction

Cultural heritage, classic and contemporary, contributes to the identity and branding of
territory, so relevant in an age of globalization. The preservation of heritage provides us to
construct our collective memories and establish our cultural identities as they are common
patrimony of historical evidences (identity and memory) of a specific territory, that need to be
safeguarded in a combined process of protection, management and usage. Between the
possibilities of making the territorial definition of cultural district reachable and preserving
cultural heritage, there is a combination of interests aimed at visualizing possible strategic
development actions.

It is a fact that ECOC presents a valuable opportunity to market cities. While the city itself
becomes a commodity to be consumed, cultural activities turn into means of promoting and
selling it. Nonetheless, without a carefully structured approach, these opportunities may be
overlooked and indeed wasted, with a huge expense incurred on the part of the city with little
or no long term benefits for its residents. Integrating conservation and valorization of cultural
heritage in the domain of community development, education and tourism, as well as
encouraging its accessibility and knowledge, can be helpful in raising awareness among
communities on the importance of cultural heritage.

According to the report of the research group of the World Tourism Organisation and
European Travel Commission (2005: 8); “In light of the convergence of the inner circle of
cultural tourism (heritage tourism or art tourism) and the outer circle (lifestyle and the
creative industries), product development will become increasingly important for cities who
want to offer a differential advantage and thereby stay ahead of the competition.” Urban
cultural tourism related product development can range from the potential offered by “cultural
diversity and ethnicity, culinary culture, fashion and design to signature architecture for
cultural institutions, cultural festivals and events” (European Travel Commission 2005: 8).
Accordingly, the social and cultural transformation has gained a different and
multidimensional structure by bringing a new model to promote the city through art and
culture events. Artists, designers, architects, intellectuals are attracted to the city as a part of
urban development policies; art and culture zones are created. Major cultural events staged
are often seen as more flexible and as distinctive carriers of the symbolic capital of a place
than hard infrastructure-based projects. Istanbul seems to emerge as a ‘creative city’. Thus,
contemporary art events, biennials and festivals have become a vital economic development

2
strategy in cityscapes that are increasingly characterized by social segmentation and
gentrification, and thus may actually feed into exclusionary practices in the urban realm.
ECOC is an example of large-scale cultural events that can be used as an engine to transform
the cityscapes.

The Case of Istanbul as the European Capital of Culture

Istanbul has been a gateway between Asia and Europe or in general terms East and West
through the ages. The popular ‘bridge’ metaphor also represents a connection between the
past and the present. The city that has been the capital of three empires is now taking the stage
as the Cultural Capital of Europe for 2010.

The changing face of the city: A historical and political background

Similar to many “global cities” Istanbul is exposed to economic, social and political changes
along with the bombardment of globalization, which has brought rapid and chaotic
urbanization. The beginning of this process can be traced back to 1950s. Starting from the
‘50s there has been major socio-political changes in Turkey such as the multi-party regime
which is the first opportunity for the public participation and freeing local governments for
implementations instead of “building blocks of democratic system” (Uzun, 2007: 132). On the
other hand a more liberal approach is adopted by means of economic and urban politics. The
state strived for developing transportation and massive road construction to connect rural and
urban areas. Due to the massive and rapid construction however, roads which are the “public
goods” have turned into somewhat against the benefit of the public as it accelerated migration
from rural to urban areas which in the end brought about urban sprawl (Yenen, 2001: 5). This
process has gained a more noticeable dimension during 1960s as the migration and urban
sprawl gave birth to sub-cultures within the inherent culture of the city. The direction of the
migration was mainly from East to the West where the industries and the jobs exist. During
the ‘60s another political situation affected the social structure crucially, which is related to
the minority groups (Jews, Greeks, and Armenians). Due to the tragic happenings provoked
by the “nation state”, these ethnic groups had to leave the places where they have been living
for centuries and established a significant level of cultural heritage. Thus by moving out
ethnic groups from old neighborhoods, new emigrants from the East have been moving in to
the abandoned places. Interestingly, it was the “nation state” that was opening the doors of the
abandoned old houses to the emigrants at first time and it was the state itself again asking to
move out to open up space for the new-coming high income group who are ready to pay

3
higher rents to live in the city center starting from the 1980s. After the ‘80s the political
situation in Turkey has changed into a more global nature in correlation with the foreign
capital entering into the economy through trade and foreign investments. This time the change
created a movement towards attracting the investors to the historical areas those are rentable
with high prices once they are cleaned up and the image is recreated. The name of the change
was “gentrification”. Istanbul has witnessed multi-national investments increasingly through
an upscale architectural vocabulary including multi-use complexes of residential towers,
offices and shopping malls located in globalized cores of ‘social distinction’ (Akpınar, 2008).
Yardımcı (2005: 58) states that the skyscrapers, hotels, shopping malls and highly secured
residential areas as well as the gentrified historical places are carefully located in the safe
parts of the unsafe metropolis. On the other hand what cannot be transformed into “safe” is
pushed out of the safe limits, being the “unsafe”, or as we call it the “other”. In this way, even
the city dwellers are turned into tourists in their cities where they live (Yardımcı, 2005: 58).

“Selling the city” ∗

The transformation had begun long before by the urban dynamics itself rather than the
political happenings. Before the intervention of government, cultural factors played a key role
to start transformation. As well as the high income groups, the artists and the intelligentsia
were attracted to the historical places. Especially the old houses in Galata which are
constructed by Genoese and Venetians are suitable to be used as studios with their high
ceilings. Therefore the gentrification process on Beyoglu axis (Tunel, Cihangir, Galata) has
been influenced by rising art and culture industry and cultural events such as festivals are
organized to attract the attention and as an example of culture-led regeneration. The first
examples of urban gentrification projects were luckily had a more democratic stage with the
involvement of NGOs and associations as the government took an indirect role only as law
maker (ie. Bosphorus Law or Conservation Law). However the other districts such as Fener,
Balat or Sulukule remained unlucky subjected to the direct intervention of the government
especially due to the harmonization process with EU and as they will be displayed as prestige
projects. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality has always been the controlling institution in this
process. Regarding the political situation the Municipality has the financial and legislative
support of Central Government. This also partly brings effectiveness of the project

∗ Keyder, Caglar (1992) "Istanbul'u Nasil Satmali?", Istanbul, 3.

4
implementations as the local and central governing bodies act together having the same
direction of interests and politics (Uzun, 2007: 136).

In 2005, the law (no. 5366) on the ‘Preservation by Renovation and Utilization by
Revitalizing of Deteriorated Immovable Historical and Cultural Properties’ was approved by
the Council of Ministers. The law aims “reconstruction and restoration of the zones which are
registered and declared as SIT (Conservation) areas by boards of conservation of cultural and
natural assets which have been worn down and are losing their characteristics”.

The districts of Fener, Balat, Süleymaniye, Tarlabaşı and Sulukule, which are the places
where diverse ethnic groups (Jews, Armenians, and Greeks) used to live, now have changed
into poor urban areas where cultural properties are not taken care of due to the political wind
of change stated earlier. The “revitalization” of two of these targeted areas, Sulukule and
Tarlabaşı, involve the mass displacement of local populations. The government plans to clean
up these areas by moving out the current population for “gentrification” purposes and by
renewing the historical buildings. The renovation and redevelopment of the areas, like many
similar plans, seems to be a part of the “identity construction” project of the ruling party
through a top-down implementation. Socially, these two areas of Istanbul embody precisely
what makes the city so emblematic of European culture in the 21st century: diversity. What
both neighborhoods have in common is the fact that, in spite of the contributions of their
communities to the city’s vibrancy, their inhabitants are overwhelmingly poor. They also
comprise populations whose existence is a threat to myths of nation-state identity (Pine,
2008). On the other hand, without local people, the heritage looses the meaning and the
renewal projects only touch the facades of the buildings, creating a theatrical stage of the
history. Therefore, it is hard to understand the eviction of the inhabitants—in violation of the
UN Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the UNESCO
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage—has
nothing to do with cultural preservation (Berlinski, 2010).

This chaotic image of the city, while being perceived as a cultural richness on one hand;
constitutes a problematic area for the local authorities leading to polarization and conflict on
the other hand. The slum like areas such as Sulukule are great assets on the historical side and
the Romani community has kept living with the cultural and entertainment industries.
However the government and the local authorities whose prime duty is to market the city have
some other plans in these economically poor areas located in the city center which will bring

5
them more revenues in the future as they could be turned into one of the cleaned and highly
secured areas through the projects done by the famous “starchitects”. Within the emergence of
the new global politics and economics, the municipal program of Istanbul may be seen as a
‘marketing strategy’ for attracting foreign investment and tourists. The government clearly
declared that “marketing Istanbul” is their priority in the highly competitive international
tourism sector and supported the idea of the museumized Historic Peninsula (Kayaalp, 2008).
While the city turns into a marketable product the government legitimizes its action under the
title of “urban regeneration”. Nobody can deny that the problematic areas need certain level of
intervention to create healthy urban areas and to lead to sustainable growth to improve the
living standards of the inhabitants. However the problem stems from the fact that the
governmental bodies perceive themselves as the producers where the places are the products
and the users are the consumers (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005: 510). In the real case, the
users are the owners of the places; they are the producers of the local culture not the
consumers. It is the tourist culture created by the government that forces inhabitants to
become tourists and consumers. Therefore the scope of the governmental projects is falling
far away from being sustainable. As cities become playgrounds for visitors and potential
investors, the problem of poverty and social exclusion are not solved but rendered invisible
(Bezmez, 2008: 816).

The end result is only excluding the real actors of the city in the urban processes, sweeping
them away to the outskirts of the city, keeping their living conditions away from the eyes and
introducing new and clean places to consume. This process is totally preventing cultural
exchange whereas it is the most crucial element to connect socially segregated segments.
Yardimci (2007) states that if diverse identities and cultures do not form a combined urban
culture there would be multiple cities rather than multiplicity, which would result in
fragmentation and polarization.

Cities play a major role in the construction and experience of the cultures of everyday life
and, within their spaces, collective and individual meanings are made and unmade and
identities are formed (Stevenson, 2003). The melting-pot metaphor and chaotic structure with
crowds of people from different nationalities, ethnicities and speaking different languages are
signifiers of the heterogeneity of Istanbul’s urban culture and rich cultural life not in
buildings, cinema and theater halls but on the streets of the city. “The streets are the vital
organs of the creative city. After all, people meet in the streets and it is here that human
contact, unexpected encounters and business life take place. This street ballet contributes to
6
creativity and economic dynamics.’’ (Hospers & van Dalm, 2005: 10). As well as its melting-
pot structure, the diversity in Istanbul is formed through “union of the opposites”. As Istanbul
is a city between ‘Orient and Occident’, the conflicting sides are not perceived as somewhat
negative but on the contrary they are appraised as qualities enriching the city and its identity.
Different ethnic groups living in the same neighborhood, churches, synagogues and mosques
in vicinity to each other, booming population with continuous migration despite the carrying
capacity of the land, skyscrapers rising shoulder by shoulder with illegal squatter (gecekondu)
housing, they all seem like the signs of a problematic and chaotic city. The sphere of
circulation – of commodities, money and individuals – provides the basis for an image of the
city as a highly complex web of interactions verging on the chaotic (Frisby, 2001).

The cultural mosaic of the city was destroyed by the top-down approaches of the government
in order to adjust globalizing world, and to get its share from the foreign capital and “rent
gap”, through “rebranding” and “reselling” the city. New segments of the population –
bankers and young professionals – acquire globalized consumption habits and lifestyles.
Therefore they reside in spaces that replicate similar ones in other globalizing cities, that is to
say in gated communities and gentrified neighborhoods. All this produces new levels of social
and economic inequality and polarization as well as the inequality in the use of the built
environment (Keyder, 2005: 124).

From mega-events to pseudo-events: “Capital of culture” or “Capital of Corruption”? ∗

As it can be considered that any urban space is a reflection of social relations and dynamics
(Lefebvre, 2000), the mega projects, as the mirror image of the ambitions and organized
interests of the ruling authorities, can also be approached from the other side of the mirror:
key actors and their struggles in the process (Bezmez, 2008: 816).

The nation state intervention is increasingly being influenced by the globalization and its
agencies such as IMF and World Bank or by other “supra national” agencies notably the EU.
Thus, globalization also has a governance dimension which has a significant impact on the
development strategies of the cities. Actually the financial support coming from EU for the
rehabilitation of the old neighborhood triggered Municipalites to take the money and use
accordingly with their purposes. Gentrification was just a tool to legitimize their acts and
destructions (Ergun, 2004).

∗
Berlinski, Claire, (2010) “Turkey's Capital of Culture shrugs off the jibes”, The National, January 12, 2010

7
Nevertheless, sustainable development is often correlated with more decentralized type of
governance, with less top-down regulation, with non-state actors and with an emphasis on
more direct public involvement in local decision making. Although this is the ideal case, in
the case of Istanbul it has been always the inhabitants who are paying for the results of
ineffective conservation planning. The municipalities are slow to take actions and their
interests conflict with the local people, NGOs as well as the other supra-national bodies
leaving the cultural heritage not taken care. For this reason UNESCO decided to take these
historical neighborhoods on the list of “World Cultural Heritage in Danger” (Kocabas, 2006:
113, 120). Here Istanbul takes the stage for 2010 as a world-city whose citizens are socially
excluded, who is deprived of protecting its cultural assets and who is losing its identity and its
past under the pressure of globalization.

In this paper, the main discussion point has been the urban transformation projects which have
been planned in the ECOC program. However the projects and their effects or expected
results are not limited to the urban revitalization of the historical neighborhoods. Actually the
whole process from the beginning caused debates. Likewise the most cities where has been
selected as the European Capital of Culture there has ended with budget deficits, bitter
recriminations, public outrage and scandals. One example is, unsurprisingly, the chairman of
the Istanbul 2010 Agency executive board, Nuri Colakoglu, resigned in February 2009 which
is followed by other board members. In addition, some of the projects supported by the
Istanbul 2010 Agency for ECOC raise questions about their selection process that has been
made with some criteria other than cultural significance in mind. The restoration of historic
city walls has been given to unqualified bidders just because they share the interests with
Municipalities but on the other hand leaving archeologists in convulsions while Istanbul is
face to face with the danger of being thrown off UNESCO's world heritage list. Furthermore,
another example is Ataturk Cultural Center (AKM) that has been the major concert hall and
the main venue for major cultural events in the city since the ‘50s. The Agency proposed its
renovation and declared AKM as “one of the most important elements of the 2010 ECOC
program,” not only because it is supposed to be the venue for many of the planned events
(Berlinski, 2010). However the project was completed as scheduled, and the city has been
shaken with the rumors of corruption once again. One of the main arguments was the
malicious intention of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality to destroy the building and to
open up a shopping mall as the renovation project was about building a culture complex with
a shopping mall , cinema halls and so on. After understanding the main target of Municipality

8
in the process, this is not far away from reality. Aksoy (2009) describes the current status of
the project in her words:

“In the centre of the city, the Atatürk Cultural Centre (AKM) in Taksim and the Muhsin
Ertuğrul Theatre Hall in Harbiye both illustrate the trend of targeting existing cultural facilities
for demolition in order to build super-modern, prestigious and multi-functional cultural
spaces. In the case of AKM, however, redevelopment will take place instead of demolition,
owing to the public outcry about the building’s secular and republican symbolism.”

It can be said that the goals of organizing committee are not realistic. As if, the aim of ECOC
is to promote Istanbul as a brand and the development of long neglected cultural heritage
projects: “The name of Istanbul will be associated with culture and arts all over the world”
(Istanbul 2010 official website, 2010a), which is a marketing strategy rather than targeting a
sustainable project. However the organizers continue to highlight sustainability as the
Agency’s website proudly assumes that “The city’s cultural heritage will be managed in a
sustainable manner and it will become even more of a magnet than ever” (Istanbul 2010
official website, 2010a). The economic dimension of the projections is even more interesting
as the jobs are expected to be created for a large number of people ranging from
communications to organization, management, design, education and creative fields which is
no more than either an innocent optimism or pure made up story when the global recession is
taken into consideration (Berlinski, 2010).

The organizers continue to answer critical questions in an unconvincing way of storytelling.

For instance their main argument to address the urban and cultural dimension of citizenship in
the ECOC process is that “Istanbul will strive to bring its historical and contemporary
experience of management of diversity and civic participation to broaden the debate and
policy thinking that have been developing ever since the experience of the Istanbul Habitat
Conference in 1996” (Istanbul 2010 official website, 2010b). Additionally, it has been
asserted that ECOC will function as a bridge connecting Europe to the East. The bridging
function here derives from the geographical location having the idea in mind to create
international networks (Istanbul 2010 official website, 2010b). However it has not been that
easy to communicate and embrace all the meanings and people involved in this process as we
have seen the examples of cultural clash, conflict of interests, social exclusion and even
eviction threats.

9
Considering all these, it can be questioned whether the scope of ECOC 2010 in Istanbul is
broad enough to cover all layers of society, or whether it is just targeting a limited segment of
residents with its upscale and advanced artistic activities. The ECOC program, to be
successful and achieve its aims, should embrace all the layers of the society and communicate
with them (Kuzgun et al, 2010).

Conclusion

Like in many sectors and projects, creativity is very important in the ECOC project. Beyazit
and Tosun (2006: 5) claim that; “So as the time is limited, the projects that will represent the
city should be creative, expressive and impressive”. In Robins’ words “the particularity and
identity of cities is about product differentiation; their cultures and traditions are now
sustained through the discourses of marketing and advertising” (Robins, 1993: 306 qtd. in
Dogan, 2005: 20).

Keyder (2000) states that, Istanbul has to take part in the global mobility in accordance with
the concept of “global city”. However, together with the globalization and its effects, it is also
crucial to think of the reflections on the society. An urban space is not solely an image to be
sold through the media, but rather it is something to be experienced physically through high
level of interaction with its inhabitants, history, culture and heritage. Today culture industries,
governments and private sectors separate the culture from its urban context and create new
values through the process so called ‘urban renewal’. There is a gap between local needs and
the cultural policies due to the absence of local community’s representation. Although the
marketing strategies emphasize ethnic diversity to celebrate Istanbul as a world city, the
reality is different. The minority groups and Romani populations are subjected to social
stigmatization and exclusion. Nonetheless, the European Capital of Culture cannot be
constructed on glamorous projects of ‘Starchitects’ or world-famous artists simply but can
only be achieved by encouraging its citizens to take an active role and to participate.

10
 Bibliography

Act No: 5366, 2005.

Available at http://inuraistanbul2009. files.wordpress.com/2009/06/law-5366-1.pdf
(accessed 14 August 2010).
Akpınar, İ. Y., 2008.
“Remapping Global Istanbul: The Kanyon Center at Büyükdere”. Conference Review:
Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? Available at
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/istanbulconference/abstracts.html (accessed 14 August 2010).
Aksoy, A., 2009.
“Istanbul’s Choice”, Istanbul City of Intersections - Urban Age Newspaper, Available at
http://www.urban-age.net/publications/newspapers/istanbul/articles/12_AsuAksoy/en_GB/
(accessed 14 August 2010)

Berlinski, C., 2010.

“Turkey's Capital of Culture shrugs off the jibes”, The National, January 12, 2010. Available
at http://www.berlinski.com/?q=node/130 (accessed 14 August 2010)

Beyazıt, E. & Tosun, Y., 2006.

“Evaluating Istanbul in the Process of European Capital of Culture 2010”,
42nd ISoCaRP Congress. Available at http://www.isocarp.net/Data/ case_ studies/762.pdf
(accessed 01 July 2009).
Bezmez, D., 2008.
The Politics of Urban Waterfront Regeneration: The Case of Haliç (The Golden Horn)
Istanbul, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (32) 4, p. 815-840.
Dogan, D. H., 2005.
"Walking Istanbul": Symbolic Construction of the City by Tourism. Thesis (M.A.) Bogazici
University. Graduate Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Ergun, N. 2004.
Gentrification in Istanbul, Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning,
Vol. 21, No. 5, 10, p. 391-405
Frisby, D., 2001.
Cityscapes of Modernity: Critical Explorations. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Hospers, G.J. & van Dalm R., 2005.
How to Create A Creative City, The Viewpoints of Richard Florida and Jane Jacobs,
Foresight, 7(4), p. 8-12.
Istanbul 2010 official website, 2010a
http://www.en.istanbul2010.org/AVRUPAKULTURBASKENTI/istanbulakatkilari/index.htm

Istanbul 2010 official website, 2010b

http://www.en.istanbul2010.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ist2010_images/gp_540566
.pdf

Kavaratzis, M. & Ashworth, G. J., 2005.

City Branding: An Effective Assertion Of Identity Or A Transitory Marketing Trick?,
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 96, p. 506–514
11
Kayaalp, N., 2008.
Gentrification and/or Identity Construction: The Historic and Touristic Süleymaniye
Neighborhood, Conference Review: Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
Available at http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/istanbulconference/abstracts.html
(accessed 01 July 2009).
Keyder, C., 1992
Istanbul'u Nasil Satmali?, Istanbul, 3.
Keyder, C., 2000.
Istanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Arasında, İstanbul: Metis.
Keyder, C., 2005.
Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 29(1), p. 124-134
Kocabaş, A., 2006.
Urban Conservation in Istanbul: Evaluation and Re-conceptualization, Habitat
International (March 2006), 30 (1), p. 107-126
Kuzgun, E., Goksel, T., Ozalp, D., Somer, B., Alvarez, M. D., 2010.
Perceptions of Local People Regarding Istanbul as a European Capital of Culture, PASOS
Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 8(3) Special Issue, p. 27-37

Lefebvre, H., 2000.

The production of space, Blackwell, Oxford.

Pine, J., 2008.

Weaving and Ripping Istanbul’s Social Fabric: Migration, Space, and Power in the Urban
Landscape. Conference Review: Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
Available at http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/istanbulconference/abstracts.html
(accessed 14 August 2010).
Stevenson, D., 2003.
Cities and Urban Cultures. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Uzun, C. N., 2007.
Globalizatıon and Urban Governance in Istanbul, Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 22, p.127-138.
World Tourism Organisation and European Travel Commission, 2005.
City Tourism and Culture, the European Experience. Brussels. Available at
http://www.etc-corporate.org/resources /uploads/ETC_CityTourism&Culture_LR.pdf
(accessed 14 August 2010).

Yardımcı, S., 2005.

Kentsel Değişim ve Festivalizm: Küreselleşen İstanbul’ da Bienal, İletişim Yayınları, Istanbul
Yardımcı, S., 2007.
Festivalising Difference: Privatization of Culture and Symbolic Exclusion in İstanbul. EUI
Working Papers RSCAS 2007/35 Mediterranean Programme Series.
Yenen, Z. 2001.
A World City on Water: Urban Development of Istanbul and Transformation of
Townscape, NED Architecture and Planning Journal Townscapes, Volume 1., p.1-13

12
 Appendix:

Conservation Areas: Fener, Balat, Süleymaniye, Tarlabaşı, and Sulukule

13