UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Building Beyoğlu Histories of place in a central district in Istanbul Maessen, J.M.A.H. Publication date 2019 Document Version Other version License Other Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Maessen, J. M. A. H. (2019). Building Beyoğlu: Histories of place in a central district in Istanbul. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:06 Oct 2021 making in the district INTRODUCTION 10 Building Beyoğlu Introduction 11 2016 article in The New York Times entitled ‘On Istiklal, Istanbul’s Champs-Élysées, Symbols of a City’s Malaise’, the author offers a prozaic description of the central artery in one of Is- tanbul’s historic districts, Beyoğlu, framing it as a ‘mile-long sea of humanity, with a quaint streetcar rumbling down the middle’. This ‘quaint’ scene is no more, he claims: ‘These days, though, it is a sym- bolA of the city’s malaise.’ 1 Extrapolating the situation of ‘malaise’ of the İstiklal Caddesi (İstiklal Avenue) to the district of Beyoğlu at large, the author quotes a prominent voice from Istanbul’s urban activist scene who states: “All the characteristic landmarks that made Beyoglu special disappeared one by one,” said Mucella Yapici, a member of Istanbul’s Chamber of Architects. […] “And the neighborhood turned into a place that entirely lost its soul. Old taverns, bookstores, theaters, and espe- cially movie theaters, shut down.”2 This representation of Beyoğlu’ perpetual demise, a recurrent trope about the area, lies at the core of this dissertation, exploring the histo- ricity of place-making in Beyoğlu, between 1950 and 1990. It argues that perceptions of the district’s change in terms of its socio-cultural com- position and built environment have resulted in discursive over-deter- minations of the area’s identitarian representations or associations: cosmopolitanism, urban deterioration, socio-cultural marginalism and Image 1: An evening on İstiklal Caddesi, Beyoğlu, 2018. a place where people fail to claim their rights to the city. By means of six case studies, delineated by six concrete spaces, the thesis will aim to highlight the historical complexity of the district’s processes of place- 12 Building Beyoğlu Introduction 13 making in the district, thereby problematizing representations of pro- cesses of continuity and discontinuity in Beyoğlu. The thesis’ histori- cal focus is the period between 1950 and 1990, four decades marked by Istanbul’s development from a middle-sized city into a metropole, ending with the acceleration of gentrification processes in the area. To provide relevant historical context, however, each chapter will reach back in its analysis to the nineteenth century, incorporating the work of historians, art and architectural historians, geographers and others. Geographically, the thesis will focus on the area known as Beyoğlu, al- though that name should be considered as a geographic container pri- marily from a discursive point of view; as this thesis will demonstrate, what is associated with Beyoğlu as an area is a dynamic process subject to change over time. The six case studies provide meaningful limitations to the thematic, geographic and historical scope of this dissertation and although they should not be considered to be exemplary, they do shed Map 1: Overview of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, the Beyoğlu district is highlighted in black. light on broader processes that took place between 1950 and 1990 in Beyoğlu, Istanbul and Turkey. This introduction serves to present the objectives and structure of the thesis. Firstly, it will situate the thesis within its multi-disciplin- ary field, between historical geography and urban history and indicate the methodological considerations on which this thesis is based. It will continue with a reflection on positionality and the process of conduct- Eyüp Kağıthane ing research for this project and a discussion of the presented source material. Finally, the thesis structure will be outlined, providing a sum- Gazios- manpaşa mary of each of the chapters and the conclusions. Şişli Beşiktaş THEORY AND METHODOLOGY Bayram- paşa Beyoğlu ‘You have chosen the most uninteresting period for your research!’, said an acquianted prominent Istanbulite during an informal conversation about our shared interest in the history of Beyoğlu. My research focuses, Üsküdar Zeytin- indeed, on the period between 1950 and 1990, not typically considered burnu Fatih to be the district’s glory years. For an urban historian, however, these Eminönü four decades are particularly significant because they mark a period perceived as the era in which Beyoğlu lost its true ‘cosmopolitan’ self, Map 2: Overview of the intersection between the Golden Horn (left) and Bosphorus (right) with the and ceased being the vibrant and wealthy belle-époque setting that it surrounding administrative districts. 14 Building Beyoğlu Introduction 15 had allegedly been some eighty years prior. When I started investigating plea to rethink the long-lasting connection between the disciplines of Beyoğlu as a potential topic of research, I was struck by how little work geography and history. This is a highly meaningful plea, yet when his- had been conducted on this period. A few in-depth studies existed fo- torians (including myself) borrow terminology from colleagues in ge- cusing on one of the most dramatic events in the district, the September ography or urban sociology they tend to overlook or underestimate the 1955 pogroms on the Greek community of Istanbul. Yet while the district complexity of the debate that underpins these terms, almost as a form features explicitly or implicitly in publications examining these tragic of academic tokenism. How relevant is it, for instance, to refer repeat- events, the burgeoning popular and academic literature on the history edly to the same pages of Henri Lefebvre’s English-language edition of of Beyoğlu from the 1980s onwards has zoomed in nearly exclusively on La Production de l’Espace without considering the work’s ambiguity, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. When the post-1940s context and afterlife? Föllmer, for instance has opted to consider Lefe- period is mentioned, if at all, it is typically as an object of nostalgia. At bvre’s work rather as a historical source, instead of using it to reiterate 4 the same time, a wealth of research exists on the district’s more recent the New Left’s critique of modernity. When discussing urban ‘space’, evolution, mostly by urban sociologists, geographers and cultural ana- moreover, different disciplines attribute an array of different meanings lysts. So why is it that a crucial period in Beyoğlu’s transition - marked to the term. Do we talk about space as a setting, as a physical and mate- by important shifts in its demography, society, cultural production, po- rial environment? Does it have agency? Or does it only have meaning sition in the city’s economy, and fundamental transformations in its ur- when invested with meaning by social actors? These are crucial ques- ban landscape – is barely studied? tions to which historians can in part use answers formulated by their A recent article by Moritz Föllmer and Mark B. Smith shows that peers in different disciplines, but also need to consider more critically the case of Beyoğlu from that perspective is, in fact, not exceptional. within the methodologies of their own discipline. The authors indicate that modern urban history has been marked by a It matters particularly for cultural and social historians, engag- tendency to focus on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Those ing with the agency of social actors within specific geographical com- studies that do focus on contemporary issues, struggle in integrating their munities. In that context, it is significant to think about Jerram’s sug- 5 research into the broader range of topics featuring in the disciplines of gestion that ‘no-one is indifferent to where he or she is’. This is one of social and cultural history, dealing mostly with issues of planning instead. the key premises on which this study is built, borrowing from Jerram On the other hand, however, the authors argue that social and cultural who has founded his understanding of the importance ascribed to space historians still have difficulty in finding their way in urban contexts and place in society on this phrase. Jerram argues that what changed and, rather, focus on social movements, state formation or other topics through the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is the related to social, political or intellectual trends.3 Urban historian Leif fact that the planning of urban environments did not limit itself to con- Jerram has similarly remarked on this seemingly ‘natural’ attitude, whi- structing the infrastructure of public spaces, but more broadly to the ch reduces the dimension of the spatial to simply a ‘significant setting’. ‘production’ of (modern) societies, families and individuals. His work is His remark becomes clearly relevant when one considers the countless innovative in the context of urban historiography, but can also be con- studies focusing on national contexts in recent and not so recent histo- sidered as a long-awaited connection between the fields of urban histo- 6 riography.