Urban Demolitions of Istanbul in the 1950S1 Dr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If one governed too much, one did not govern at all Michel Foucault, Space, Knowledge and Power - Interview with Paul Rabinow THE MAKING OF A TURKISH METROPOLIS: urban demolitions of Istanbul in the 1950s1 Dr. Ipek AKPINAR, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture summary Following the general and municipal elections in 1950, against the characterisation of Istanbul as decadent and Byzantine in the early republican years, the DP shifted the discourse on Istanbul into the “jewel of Turkey” in the 1950s and “the re-conquest of the city.” Following a six year revision of Henri Prost’s Master Plan of 1937 for Istanbul, in 1956, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes took over personal responsibility for the reconstruction and there followed in the next four years, until his fall from power, a period of intensive road building, street widening, demolition of old buildings and construction of new ones. Regarding works carried out during Menderes’s premiership, there has been controversy as to whether these were part of a policy of creating a distinctively Turkish idiom of modernity, that included the weakening of the power of ethnic minorities, who until this time constituted the majority of Istanbul’s population. The argument is based on personal recollections rather than any factual data or evidence. The questions of whether the urban clearance programme was part of a systematic ethnic purification remains un-answered. Focusing on the immigration and emigration issues in the city of Istanbul, my study introduces the origins of the concept of Turkification in economic policy, and asks to what extent it can be used to interpret cultural activity in general – and urbanism, in particular. Being based on an investigation of a cadastral archival research at Aksaray-Istanbul, the study describes the radical transformation of Istanbul’s population by the migration in and out of the city turning the capital from a cosmopolitan centre into a more Turkish one. 1 In the mid-20th century, industry and commerce replaced bureaucracy, and the centre of gravity of the country rolled from Ankara to Istanbul, which in the official discourse was proclaimed to be, once more, the jewel of Turkey. Istanbul, having been considered as a “neglected city” throughout the twenty-seven year governance of CHP (1923- 1950), PM Adnan Menderes (1950-1960) declared that “we are going to rescue her from the 1900s’ gaze” (Hürriyet, 24.09.1956). With the transition to a multi-partite democracy in 1946 and a new governing party in 1950, Istanbul became the symbolic and physical focus until the military coup of 1960.2 In the context of rapidly developing international politics and economics, Istanbul was redefined by industrialisation, rapid urban growth, and radical social change with the influx of rural immigrants from Anatolia (as a result of a start of housing shortage) and the continued emigration of non-Muslim Istanbulites from Istanbul to European countries. From 1950 to 1960, Istanbul’s population increased from 1,166,477 to 1,882,092 (National statistical annals 1950 and 1960); another indicator of urban change, is the number of registered motor vehicles; and it shows that these had risen from 3,000 in 1945 to 35,000 in 1960 (and to 100,000 in 1970), and at the same time the daily vehicular trips in the city increased from 765,000 in 1950 to 2,050,000 in 1965 (Kuban, 1996:426; Tekeli, 1992:40). The growing urban problems combined with the national issues characterised the city (illustration 1). My study introduces the radical transformation of Istanbul’s population by the migration in and out of Istanbul turning the capital from a cosmopolitan centre into a more homogenous and Turkish one. It investigates by an archival research the possible connection of how the immigration from rural areas to Istanbul, the emigration of non- Muslim Istanbulites to Europe, and massive urban demolitions for the construction of new roads turned Istanbul from an imperial, cosmopolitan, eastern Mediterranean Ottoman city, into a Turkish metropolis.3 Section 1 introduces Istanbul’s radical population growth with the rural immigration and the increase of Sünni male population in the cosmopolitan city, and its reasons, as well as the immigrants’ aggressive behaviour as a defensive reaction in an unfamiliar built 2 environment. Section 2 investigates the reasons of the emigration of the non-Muslim Istanbulites from Istanbul to European countries. It introduces the so-called Turkification issue, in other words the state-led nationalistic project in the economic and political fields. It describes the events of 6-7 September 1955 in Istanbul, where mobs attacked non-Muslims’ properties in Istanbul. Section 3 describes an archival research at the regional directorate of cadastral registry (Tapu ve Kadastro Marmara Bölge Müdürlü_ü) for a limited residential area at Aksaray, a traditional neighbourhood in Istanbul, to present some evidence to clarify the possible link in terms of occupancy of the cleared area. This study aims at showing that Istanbul’s radical transformation was a convergence of these three factors, the immigration, emigration, and physical reconstruction, all of which reshaped the multi-religious urban identity, and brought about the Turkification of Istanbul.4 SECTION 1. IMMIGRATION FROM RURAL ANATOLIA TO ISTANBUL: the Making of a Turkish metropolis It has always been its stereotype of ta_ı topra_ı altın (its stone and earth are gold) that has made Istanbul the most attractive city for Anatolian immigrants in pursuit of a better life. The flow, started in the late 1940s, had accelerated by the 1950s, where the city was ”conquered” by immigrants from Anatolia (Bartu, 1999:37). The internal immigration can be explained, first of all, by the rapid mechanisation of the agriculture mainly due to the Marshall Aid, creating unemployment among peasants, and secondly, by Istanbul’s rapidly developing industry, creating a demand for considerable numbers of workers. While holding 38,8% of the business established in Turkey before 1940, the region of Istanbul held 41,4% of the ones formed between 1950 and 1954, and 45% of those formed until 1960 (Yerasimos, 1974:819). As a result of immigration and industrialisation, rapid urban growth was a major characteristic of the era. In 1950, the percentage of Istanbulites, i.e. Istanbul born, was 52.9%, and of non-Istanbulites, 47.0%. In 1960, these percentages became 43.3% and 56.6% respectively (Baydar, 1993:75;1994:484). In this demographic structure, the ratio of male population within Turkey was 51.1% in 1960; it was 54.5% in Istanbul. The emigration of 154,198 Turkish origin Bulgarians from Bulgaria to Turkey in 1950 and 1951 was also a factor increasing the ratio of Muslims in Istanbul (Eminov, 1997:79). In the census of 1935 in Istanbul, out of 883,599, %74 of the population were Muslim, and 26.0% were non- 3 Muslim. In 1960, these percentages became 90.0% and 10.0% respectively. As can be seen, the religious ethnic groups constituted the social diversity in the early republican years in Istanbul until their number radically dropped towards the end of the 1950s. Istanbulluluk (to be an Istanbulite) used to be considered a sign of social superiority of “distinction, refinement, and competencies that are already known from daily experience and hence understood without saying” (Öncü, 1999:95, 2002:184-185). The imperial capital’s citizens were relatively better educated, mainly serving the state as bureaucrats, and sometimes related to the Ottoman family. Their social status was upper, and even their pronunciation differed from the so-called rural Anatolians. The urban space seemed to be “invaded by Anatolians”, who were looking for jobs and a better life: eski _stanbullular (old-time Istanbulites) looked back nostalgically on “the good old days in their beautiful Istanbul.”5 In this respect, the new comers had no clue about the ancient city’s urban values and culture. In this atmosphere, daily newspapers started to publish articles describing immigrants’ poor situation and linking them with crime.6 Even the Istanbul Municipality in 1951 bought some 500 return tickets monthly for Anatolians who could not manage to survive in Istanbul (Cumhuriyet, 01.08.1951). Therefore, not only its stereotype of ta_ı topra_ı altın but also its being the corrupter of innocence were the basic urban image in movies, such as Lütfi Akad’s Kanun Namına (in the name of the law) (1952) and Öldüren _ehir (Murdering City) (1953). In this context, a new citizen type and a new physical environment were emerging in Istanbul. First of all, whenever an immigrant came, his relatives, friends and people from his village followed him, and they, recreating thus their own village within a neighbourhood - a social event is described as “chain migration” (Erder,1999:161-171). Secondly, and more vehemently, they invaded the land outside municipal boundaries and created their own residential areas, gecekondus, generating not only urban growth but also differentiation of the social and urban culture.7 President Celal Bayar, just before the elections of 1950, supported the illegal housing development with a populist discourse: “Gecekondus are expression of the need. We cannot demolish them over the head of the residents by arguing that they are illegal or they are un-aesthetic” (Yerasimos and Vaner,1988:152). Apparently, the DP government supported gecekondus as a political strategy for the elections. 4 The beginning of such a wave of immigration might be seen as an ending of traditional, un-developed life-worlds by social mobility. A larger group of citizens could participate in urban high cultures and life styles, as an indication of one of the features of modernisation. However, it also brought instability both in the immigrants’ lives and city’s culture, along with the bombardment of the American dream on the other hand.