Elmada¤: A Neighborhood in Flux - IFEA-Istanbul · 2011-10-12 · [email protected] Site internet : ´ ´ Ce “dossier de l’IFEA” est un document de travail destiné à

Elmada¤:A Neighborhood in Flux

by

Didem DANIfi

Ebru KAYAALP

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ETUDES ANATOLIENNES GEORGES DUMEZILIstanbul, mars 2004

´´

série : la Turquie aujourd’hui no: 18

Directeur de la publication :

Pierre CHUVIN

Responsables des programmes :

Bayram BALCIprogramme Turquie-Caucase-Mer Noire

Gilles DORRONSOROSecrétaire scientifique

Jean-François PÉROUSEObservatoire urbain d’Istanbul

ISBN 2-906053-83-X

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ETUDES ANATOLIENNES GEORGES DUMEZIL

FRE 2549 CNRS

Nuru Ziya Sok. no.22 P.K. 5480072 Beyo¤lu/‹STANBUL

Téléphone: 90(212) 244 17 17 - 244 33 27Télécopie: 90(212) 252 80 91

Courrier électronique:[email protected]

Site internet : www.ifea-istanbul.net

´´

Ce “dossier de l’IFEA” est un document de travail destiné à une diffusion restreinte.

Les auteurs y soumettent à la discussion des points de vueet des informations dont ils sont seuls responsables.

Les lecteurs sont invités à dialoguer avec les auteursen leur écrivant à l’adresse suivante :

[email protected]

Elmada¤: A Neighborhood In Flux

1

List of photographs and maps ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter I: Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Who are we? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Fieldwork .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter II: The emergence of a neighborhood: historical background ................................................................................. 10

Transformation of the urban form in Istanbul in the 19th century ...................................................................................... 10

Emergence of Elmada¤ as an enclave of Catholic community ................................................................................................. 12

Evolution of surrounding neighborhoods: Kurtulufl, Teflvikiye, Cihangir ....................................................................... 17

Chapter III: Elmada¤ as a home for immigrants .................................................................................................................................... 21

Exodus of non-Muslims ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Pioneer immigrants of 1950s-1960s: the winners of massive migration in Elmada¤ ............................................... 28

Kurdish immigrants in Elmada¤ ................................................................................................................................................................... 32

International immigrants in Elmada¤ ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

Chapter IV: The functional transformation of Elmada¤ ................................................................................................................... 42

Harbiye ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42

Cumhuriyet Street ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

The streets of Elmada¤ ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Bobos, students and wage earner singles: Elmada¤ as a ‘transit’ location ....................................................................... 49

Leave or stay and why? The future inhabitants of Elmada¤ ..................................................................................................... 51

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Contents

List of photographs All the photographs, unless otherwise indicated, are taken by Tomurcuk Bilge Erzik in August 2003.

1. Yedikuyular Street on the southern end of Elmada¤ going down to Dolapdere. 2. and 3. Two different views of Cumhuriyet Street located between Taksim and Osmanbey.4. Row houses built as charity houses by the Saint Esprit Church on the Harbiye Çay›r› Street and then transferred toFoundation Directory (Vak›flar Müdürlü¤ü). 5. Surp Agop Row houses on the Elmada¤ Street built in the mid-19th century.6. and 7. Different views of Vatican Embassy located on the Ölçek Sokak (today Papa Roncalli Street).8.The present-day view of Surp Agop Hospital located on the Cumhuriyet Street.9. The Saint Esprit Cathedral.10. The house of Monsignor Roncalli, the future John XXIII. (source: Marmara, 2001).11. A ceremony conducted in front of the house of Monsignor Roncalli in 1913 (source: Marmara, 2001).12. People leaving the church after the religious ceremony at Saint Esprit Cathedral on 8th July 1919 (source: Martinez,1996) 13. The same street today.14. The view of Pangalt› Street (today Cumhuriyet Street), taken from the other side of the Artigiana buildings in the late19th century.15. Teflvikiye Mosque built during the Abdülmecit era (source: Istanbul Ansiklopedisi).16. Panorama of Cihangir (source: Istanbul Ansiklopedisi).17. Harbiye ‹lkö¤retim Okulu, which is built on the land donated by an Armenian to the religious minority foundations(Ölçek Street).18. An example of the houses whose ownership was transferred during the Wealth Tax era (Ölçek Street). 19. A new apartment in Elmada¤, which is constructed in the place of an old house through build-and-sell method.20. Tourism agencies on the Cumhuriyet Street.21. The land of the old fian Theatre, which is today used as an open-air car park. 22 and 23. Parking lots in the basement of apartment buildings in the inner streets of Elmada¤.24. Automobile repairers on the Elmada¤ Street.25. Dolapdere Street located on the eastern border of Elmada¤.26 and 27. Arif Pafla Manor.

List of mapsMap I: Istanbul Büyükflehir Belediyesi Yay›nlar›, Kent Haritas›. (www.ibb.gov.tr/kentharitasi)Map II: Istanbul fiehir Rehberi, Istanbul Büyükflehir Belediyesi Yay›nlar›,1989. (scale 1/10000)

List of tablesTable I: Average annual increase of population in Istanbul between 1950-1985 (source: Tekeli, 1992, 56)Table II: Demographic structure of Istanbul in 1935 and 1950, based on the spoken language (source: Akar, 2000, 203)Table III: Demographic structure of Turkey in 1935 and 1950, based on the spoken language (source: Akar, 2000, 203)


3

Introduction

How could we describe Elmada¤; as a neighbor-hood just next to Dolapdere or an old Armenianresidential area? As the favorite business centerof the 1960s or a place where most of Istanbul’stourism agencies are currently located? Couldwe describe Elmada¤ in light of its inhabitantswho have settled here through the internalmigration flows from Anatolia or in light ofIraqi immigrants who have recently started livinghere? Is Elmada¤ a neighborhood whose inhabi-tants can express their differences withoutencountering any difficulties or is it a neighbo-rhood where social and class differentia-tions cause uneasiness among its inhabitants?Or is it possible that it is a combination of allof the above?

The focus of this research is to analyze thesocial and spatial transformations of a boundedarea, the neighborhood of Elmada¤, which islocated within the mahalles of ‹nönü and Erge-nekon in Harbiye. Elmada¤, situated in thesouthern edge of fiiflli Municipality, is enclosedwithin the area among Cumhuriyet Street onthe east, Dolapdere Street on the west and Yedi-kuyular Street on the south.

Historically Elmada¤ is known as a non-Mus-lim neighborhood where a high population ofArmenians, Greeks and Jews were dwellingtogether. Especially the Catholics of Istanbulestablished themselves in the neighborhood,with all of their institutions, such as schools, achurch, a consulate, foundations and houses.However, the relatively homogenous characterof Elmada¤ as a non-Muslim enclave within thecenter of city started to change with the immi-gration of religious minorities to other countriesafter the Wealth Tax, September 6th-7th events

and Cyprus Conflict as well as the emigration ofpeople from Anatolia to Istanbul.

The most noteworthy factor constituting thesocial and cultural makeup of Elmada¤ has beenthe perpetual migration flows. For that reason,our fundamental concern in this study is toanalyze the dramatic transformation processthat Elmada¤ has been going through over acentury under the presence of incessant migra-tion flows from various areas. The impact ofthese migration flows is the underlying aspect inshaping the past, present and prospective posi-tion of Elmada¤. Therefore, we try to explain thespatial, social and cultural transformation ofthe neighborhood by mapping out the conse-quences of the various migration flows that ithas been subjected to.

Each migration wave leaving a remark fromitself in the texture of the neighborhood hasdramatically changed the resident profile as wellas the economic, social and cultural panoramaof the neighborhood. Elmada¤ was first trans-formed radically with the two-sided migration

Elmada¤:A Neighborhood In Flux

Didem DANIfi & Ebru KAYAALP

Photo 1. Yedikuyular Street on the southern end ofElmada¤ going down to Dolapdere.

4Didem Dan›fl & Ebru Kayaalp

Map I fiiflli Rehberi, fiiflli Belediyesi Yay›nlar›, 1987. (scale 1/4000)

ELM

AD

A⁄


5

processes between the 1950s and 1970s: whilenon-Muslim communities moved to other neigh-borhoods or left the country, the vacuum createdby their absence was filled by emigrants com-ing from Anatolia. Internal migration that lostits pace after the 1960s, burst back to promi-nence after the mid-1980s with the deepeningof political and economic problems breeding thepopular unrest in southeastern Anatolia. Thisresulted in a massive Kurdish flow to Istanbul.One of the remarkable neighborhoods in accom-modating Kurds in Istanbul in the last twodecades has been Elmada¤. In addition to theinternal immigration flows, many refugees andinternational transit immigrants have alsoflowed to Istanbul since the 1990s. Today Elma-da¤ also provides shelter to some of the Iraqis aswell as transit migrants from several Africancountries who temporarily settle in Turkey inorder to immigrate to third countries.

As a result of these internal and internationalimmigration flows, the social profile of Elmada¤has become more heterogeneous. Hence, a mainfocus of our study is to scrutinize the socioeco-nomic characteristics of these various immi-grant groups as well as their relations with others.Likewise, we try to discuss how the diversityand difference among the inhabitants of Elma-da¤ reflect to the social and spatial structure ofthe neighborhood. We analyze the ‘feeling ofbelongingness’ of people having different cultur-al backgrounds to Elmada¤ and the social rela-tions they establish with the other inhabitantsof the neighborhood.

Parallel to these migration flows of the lastfive decades, a functional change has taken placein Elmada¤. After the 1950s, there was constantmovement of shopping centers, business firms

and five star hotels in Istanbul along the Taksim-Harbiye-Osmanbey axis. In this period, Elmada¤attained a business center character along withits present residential feature. However, whenfiiflli-Mecidiköy became a central business dis-trict in the 1970s and then Levent-Maslak in the1990s, Elmada¤ lost its previous significance asa business area. In this respect, we also seek toexamine the effects of this functional transfor-mation on the neighborhood.

Elmada¤ is located in one of the urban cen-ters of Istanbul, namely Taksim, which is the hubof Cihangir-Tarlabafl›-Harbiye triangle. Withinthe multi-nuclei panorama of Istanbul, Taksimarea is distinguished by its rich social diversityconcerning the people who inhabit, work or strollhere. Cihangir is a recently gentrified area pre-ferred by people with high economic and cultur-al capital; Tarlabafl›-Dolapdere is a slum areainhabited by the urban poor; Feriköy-Kurtuluflhas historically been inhabited by various non-Muslim communities. Within this socially andhistorically divergent region, Elmada¤ has a moreambiguous and heterogeneous structure. Demo-graphically, the settlement of different immigrantgroups in various historical periods and func-tionally, the transformation of residential sitesespecially near to Cumhuriyet Street into workplaces have influenced the social and spatialstructure of Elmada¤. In order to envisage thefuture of Elmada¤, which is a lower-middle classneighborhood squeezed among these disparatedistricts, we map out the business and residen-tial tendencies within this neighborhood andits position in comparison to other pieces of thefragmented urban structure in Istanbul.

Our study has five main sections: In the firstsection, we explain the methodology that we

Photo 2 and 3 Two different views of Cumhuriyet Street located between Taksim and Osmanbey.


followed while conducting the fieldwork aswell as writing the ethnography. It is pertinentto note that rather than adopting mainstream orlet’s say prescribed methodologies we preferredto use the ‘method’, which was simultaneouslyformulated with our incessant questions in theframework of our academic knowledge andpractical difficulties in the field. In the secondsection, we attempt to discover the historicalemergence of Elmada¤ as a neighborhood in the19th century, which has not been studied up tilltoday. We believe that the transformation Elma-da¤ has been going through today can no meansbe apprehended without historical explanations.In the third chapter, we analyze the migrationflows from and to Elmada¤. In this regard, weexplain in detail the reasons and consequencesof the exodus of non-Muslims from the neigh-borhood, the immigration of Anatolian peoplein 1950s, Kurdish immigration starting after mid1980s and international immigration acceleratedafter 1990s to the neighborhood. We not only tryto single out the differences among these migra-tion flows which have been characterized bydifferent political, economic and social factorsbut also show how Elmada¤ has been influ-enced and molded through these migrationdynamics. The fourth chapter focusing on thefunctional transformation of Elmada¤ discussestwo questions. The first point is about the busi-ness and residential inclinations of the neigh-borhood, whereas the second issue discusses thequestions ‘who move in and out the neighbor-hood and why’ to give an idea about the futureof Elmada¤. Lastly, in the conclusion we presentthe inferences that we draw out of this studyand we try to discuss the projections about thefuture of the vicinity.

* * *

The motive behind our decision to conducta study on Elmada¤ is to discover the social andhistorical richness of Elmada¤, which has re-mained unexamined until today. We think thatsuch a study necessitates an interdisciplinaryperspective, which blends sociological, anthro-pological and historical approaches. Besides, webelieve that a research on Elmada¤ may presentthe possibility of finding out a connection be-tween micro and macro perspectives and may

provide an opportunity for new conceptualiza-tions in urban studies. As ‘insiders’ of Elmada¤,we are also motivated by the desire to bring tolight the history of the neighborhood that welive in and the effort to understand the trans-formations that we observe in our daily livesthrough an academic perspective. Indeed, thetopics we aim to focus on in this research havebeen the questions that we try to answer asinhabitants of Elmada¤ as well as social scien-tists.

Being subject to incessant local, national andinternational immigration processes and thusexperiencing a rapid and severe urban transfor-mation, Istanbul reveals a complex structure. Itis possible to understand this complex structurethrough a micro scale examination of Elmada¤in light of macro dynamics. We believe that anambitious effort to understand Istanbul in itsentirety necessitates a modest study focusingon its fragments, even though such an approachcarries its own handicaps too, such as gettingstuck in a narrow perspective. Yet, we try to over-come this problem by adopting a comparativeperspective such as presenting the differencesbetween the neighboring districts, as well asanalyzing the micro transformations with refer-ence to the macro dynamics. Besides, we believethat the analysis of various social networks andpatterns within a limited territory has its advan-tages such as the manageability of the researchand the discovery of some social patterns andtransformations that coexist in a heterogeneousneighborhood such as Elmada¤. Urban studiesconducted in Turkey have generally focusedmore on the transformation of peripheral settle-ments and shantytown dwellers1. We believethat our research in Elmada¤ can pave the wayfor a better understanding of the overall trans-formation of the city by shifting the focus to theinner city areas in the urban studies.

The research process was enjoyable for usboth academically and personally. Mainly itafforded us the opportunity to get acquaintedwith diverse inhabitants of Elmada¤, who werelargely unknown to us before. It was gratifyingto open a dialogue with people we would nor-mally never come into communication with.Unfortunately, we encountered the usual social

1 Within the abundant bibliography on shantytowns in Turkey, one can specifically look at Ifl›k & P›narc›o¤lu(2001), Kazgan (1999), fienyap›l› (1998), Erder (1996).


7

scientist/writer dilemma, and found ourselvesunable to encapsulate the sum of our experien-ces within our text, or rather, to have our textbe a true reflection of our observations. Academ-ically it was also enjoyable because we wereable to draw upon our academic training andbackground, but without the normal confines ofan academic thesis or research. Thanks to thegrant provided by l’Institue Français d’EtudesAnatoliennes, we had the freedom to be morecreative in our research process, while stilldrawing upon the tools of our academic back-ground. We hope the reader can also share theexcitement and interest that infused this project.

Chapter 1 : Methodology

‘If your approach to research is a cold, profes-sional one, then the beginning and the end ofyour work is predetermined to a large extent.But if your relationship to the research goesbeyond such a framework then research becomesan adventure with no preceding knowledge asto where it would begin and end’ (Tekeli, 1992,1). Our research adventure in Elmada¤ started ina similar atmosphere: as inhabitants of Elmada¤we were participating in the everyday life of theneighborhood but as social scientists, we hadan inevitable academic interest. Our attempt toleave behind the ‘cold and professional approachof an academic research’ -which is taught as asine-qua-non principle for a ‘scientific’ research-became plausible with our inhabitant status inElmada¤. Having the opportunity to focus ondetails or practices in our everyday lives andsharing the usual inhabitant problems withthe others in Elmada¤, we made an effort to

overcome the limitations of strict theoreticalframeworks. We did not allow our precedingacademic knowledge to impede our researchand thus end up with ‘predetermined’ conclu-sions. Rather than attempting to prove ourtheoretical knowledge with our observations onElmada¤, we first tried to ‘see’ what was goingon in this neighborhood and then to formulateit through the lenses of our theoretical accumu-lations. Otherwise, why is there a need of both-ering ourselves with the fieldwork?

In shaping and designing this project wevery much dealt with the questions of howethnography should be written as well as howfieldwork should be thought about. We are awareof the fact that ethnography is in the midst of apolitical and epistemological crisis and trying toget out of it through new writing techniques2.Although we admit that all these techniques tryto reestablish a better ethnography, we do notdisregard the problem that different modes ofwriting can easily reduce the problem to an eth-ical issue by falling into humanism by i.e, ‘beinga better anthropologist who let the Others speak’.Believing that the problem is more importantthan this, our concern becomes that of challeng-ing the sovereign status of researchers by ques-tioning the very constitution of their subjectpositions and problematizing the relationshipsbetween them and the ‘Others’.

Who are we?Edward Said suggests that in the ethnographicwritings there is someone -an authority- whospeaks and analyzes everything except her/him-self. But who speaks? For what and whom?(Said, 1989, 212). It is the anthropologist, whogoes to the non-Western countries, learns the

2 James Clifford, in his article ‘On Ethnographic Authority’, examines four different modes of authority: experien-tial, interpretive, dialogical and polyphonic. The experiential and interpretive modes tend to suppress the dialogi-cal dimension of fieldwork by assigning full control to the anthropologist. Dialogic texts which are composed ofdialogues between the ethnographer and a native informant have ‘the effect of transforming the cultural text intoa speaking subject, who sees as well as is seen, who evades, argues, probes back’ (Clifford, 1986, 14). However,there is a frequent tendency for the native to appear as representative of her/his culture in these texts (Clifford,1988, 44). Clifford proposes ‘polyvocal ethnographic writing’ as an alternative in which anthropologist’s voice isone of many voices which serve to represent the cultures. Polyvocalic ethnography is composed of quotations andthere is not a privileged informant as it is in the dialogical ethnography. However, in this alternative text theauthoritative authorship can not be totally eliminated, since in this case the ethnographer takes up the role of the‘editor’ who designs the order of text according to her/his will. In the last instance, it is the ethnographer whochooses the natives s/he would talk and the quotations s/he would cite in the text. Also one can criticize this typeof ethnographic writing by asking to what extent the ethnographer can pluralize the voices within the text or towhat extent such an attempt can be useful for the effacement of authoritical stance.


language of natives and stays there in a periodof time without giving up the role of the observ-er by ‘distancing’ her/himself from the nativepeople. Or it is the one who makes ethnograph-ical work at home by interpreting the culturesof natives from the perspective of her/his ownculture.

Following the arguments of Said, we claimthat the researcher should interrogate her/hisposition as well as problematize the aim andexecution of the project as prerequisites of anethical question. Thus the class, cultural back-ground and the attitudes of the researcher shouldbe examined. Bearing this in mind, we can de-scribe ourselves as well-educated, middle classwomen currently living in Elmada¤. We shouldadmit that being female researchers facilitatedour communication with the interviewees; whilewomen interviewees shared the most intimatestories of their lives with us, men were morereceptive to our requests to interview by per-ceiving us as less threatening than our male-counterparts. However, we also experiencedsome disadvantages or lets say difficulties ofbeing women researchers in the fieldwork whenwe faced some events, which created tensionsand emotional subversions on our parts. Espe-cially while ‘listening to men’s stories on women’,we, as feminists sometimes fell into an ethicaldilemma of whether to reveal our sincere feel-ings, or whether to listen to them while disre-garding our very ‘subjective’ feelings. The ques-tion of whether to be honest to ourselves or toothers remained an unsettled and controversialproblem throughout this project.

We have never assumed that we are unified,coherent subjects having full access to theknowledge of the other people. On the contrary,throughout this research we confronted the factthat our identities are fragmented and contradict-ory. Indeed, this experience served to amplifyour self-awareness and provided an opportuni-ty for us to confront some of our less-manifestcharacteristics. While conducting the fieldwork,we became aware of the fact that our long edu-cation process has already shaped us as modernwestern subjects and conferred upon us a pre-given privilege of ‘being respected’ that posi-tioned us apart from our interviewees. Ratherthan involve ourselves in a futile endeavor to

deny this special and distant position -whichcould easily end up with a naïve but unethicalclaim of ‘we are just like you’-, we acknowl-edged the fact that we do not share the samehistorical, social, economical and cultural expe-riences as our interviewees. We were even con-scious of the fact that posing questions to otherssignifies an authoritative stance, in other words,a position of power. Therefore, we tried to ques-tion the position of authority, which is oftentaken-for-granted by many researchers. For us,the only way to achieve this is always to inter-rogate our subject positions, our ‘privileges’ andour ‘status’.

There were many reasons behind our motiveto examine the neighborhood3. One of the mainpurposes was to learn more about the place inwhich we live. As mentioned above, it has beeneasy for us to involve in participant observationduring our daily lives. We thus observed notonly other people living in Elmada¤ but alsoourselves as the inhabitants of this neighbor-hood. In other words, we turned our gaze toourselves along with the others rather than dis-tance ourselves and relegate the other inhabit-ants to a position of ‘objects of study’. In thissense, we are neither an outsider nor an insider,but both simultaneously, as Trinh T. Minh-haexpresses it:

‘The moment the insider steps out from theinside, she is no longer a mere insider (and viceversa). She necessarily looks in from the out-side while also looking out from the inside. [...]She refuses to reduce herself to an Other, andher reflections to a mere outsider’s objectivereasoning or insider’s subjective feeling. Sheknows, [...] that she is not an outsider like theforeign outsider. [...] Not quite the Same, notquite the Other, she stands in that undeterminedthreshold place where she constantly drifts inand out. Undercutting the inside/outside oppo-sition, her intervention is necessarily that of adeceptive insider and deceptive outsider. She isthis Inappropriate Other/Same who moves aboutwith always at least two/four gestures: that ofaffirming ‘I am like you’ while persisting in herdifference; and that of remind ‘I am different’while unsettling every definition of othernessarrived at [...]’ (1997, 217).

3 We have already explained these reasons in the Introduction part of this project.


9

Our position of ‘both-in-one insider/out-sider’ (Minh-ha, 1997, 217) also enabled us tochallenge the basic binary opposition in thesocial sciences, i.e. the distinction between thesubjectivity and objectivity of the observer. Forus, the assumption of the researcher as somekind of independent objective or corruptedsubjective observer should be abandoned. Wereject the association with one of these binarypairs, such as subjective/objective insiders/outsiders. But rather, we situate ourselves in anin-between position that provides us with newperspectives of seeing social transformations,which cannot be grasped by either an outsideror an insider position. In brief, we admit that theattitude of ‘persistently holding an in-betweenposition’ which was offered and adopted byO¤uz Ifl›k and Melih P›narc›o¤lu (2001) in theirpath-breaking research in Sultanbeyli has guidedus in our study in Elmada¤.

Fieldwork

We fundamentally based our research on in-depth interviews with the old and new inhabit-ants of Elmada¤. Faced with the fact that nohistorical study was available on Elmada¤, wefirst tried to map out the historical processes andtransformations of the neighborhood by investi-gating certain institutions in this district. In thisregard, we met with the officials of Surp AgopHospital, Surp Agop Foundation, Artigiana Rest-home, Notre Dame de Sion High School, CaritasOrganization and the Vatican Consulate. At thispoint it is necessary to note that our goal wasneither to conduct an oral history research noruncover merely the history of Elmada¤. Ratherwe intended to go beyond both of these aspectswithout ignoring the importance and necessityof an historical analysis. Therefore, history isnot the single most foundation of our work butone of the pillars upon which it stands andwhich inspires our sociological imagination.

In the second phase, we conducted in-depthinterviews with our target group, the old andnew inhabitants of Elmada¤ to examine theneighborhood’s social structure and to gain in-sight about its transformation. Prior to the fieldsurvey, we implemented a pilot survey by inter-viewing the neighborhood headman, several realestate agents and shop owners. We employedthe in-depth interview technique for its flexibil-ity, although this method is more difficult and

time consuming compared to other researchtechniques. We believe that unforeseen dimen-sions of personal experiences and social diver-sity might be revealed through this method.

The survey’s target group may be segmentedinto six different groups. The first group includesnon-Muslims, the oldest inhabitants of Elma-da¤ who have lived there for years. People whohave emigrated from different regions of Anato-lia and settled Elmada¤ with the migration flowafter 1950 constitute the second group. Kurdswho settled in Elmada¤ during the rapid inter-nal immigration movement of the post-1980sform the third group. The fourth group includesinternational immigrants from Iraq and variousAfrican countries who have settled there withthe aim of moving to a third country. The fifthgroup, which can be defined as the temporarypopulation of Elmada¤, is comprised of univer-sity students, single wage earners and bohemi-an bourgeoisie. Finally, the last group consistsof Muslim and non-Muslim individuals whohave left Elmada¤ and moved to various neigh-borhoods of the city for different motives. Thesample is selected from these six groups andthe sample size is forty-four. It is important tonote here that the Gypsies dwelling especially inlower side of Elmada¤ for long years, is anothersignificant group that should be taken into con-sideration. Yet, in our study we were unable toconduct interviews with the members of thisgroup due to the difficulties arising in the field-work. The most apparent obstacle is the diffi-culty to single out the members of this groupin the neighborhood since many of the peopleneither like to be defined as Gypsy nor call them-selves as Gypsy. Therefore, we try to compen-sate the lack of information on Gypsies by takingthe ideas of other inhabitants about them. Inbrief, although our study is short of any analy-sis about the experiences of Gypsies living inthis neighborhood, we make several observa-tions and arguments about how other inhabit-ants in Elmada¤ consider them and their pres-ence in the neighborhood.

However, it is pertinent to note that we haveneither assumed that each of these six groupsconstitutes a homogenous entity in itself norconsidered the interviewees as the sole ‘repre-sentatives’ of their groups. As Trinh T. Minh-harightly suggests ‘there can hardly be such a thingas an essential inside that can be homogenously


represented by all insiders; an authentic insiderthere, an absolute reality out there, or an uncor-rupted representative who can not be questionedby another uncorrupted representative....’(1997,217). Otherwise, we would have fallen into thetrap of freezing the identities of these people bydrawing a one to one correspondence betweenthem and the group of people that they wereassumed to represent. Sometimes the overlap-ping of several groups necessarily led us to for-mulate our questions within macro frameworksother than within the trajectories of designateddiscussions. For instance, we came upon anArmenian family dwelling in Elmada¤ whosemembers demonstrated almost all the featuresof Kurdish political immigration of the late-1980s. As we will discuss in the following pages,we evaluated their experience within the con-text of Kurdish immigration rather than as Ar-menians living in Elmada¤ for years. Therefore,the complexity of our research reflected in thisexample was dealt with by adopting differentperspectives such as explaining some events interms of periods rather than merely in terms ofethnicity.

Interviews began with questions related tothe demographic characteristics and socio-eco-nomic status of the respondents. We investigat-ed residential mobility patterns and asked ques-tions pertaining to where they moved from, whythey chose Elmada¤ and so on. Furthermore, weasked about the nature of the respondents’ rela-tionship with the other members of the neigh-borhood, how they define other residents ofElmada¤, whether they are satisfied with theneighborhood and neighborly relations. Indeed,we hoped to discover whether social diversityand differentiation of Elmada¤ has created anysocial tension.

We asked people who have moved out ofElmada¤ about the reasons for their departureas well as their experiences and memories aboutthe neighborhood. In order to make some esti-mations about the future of Elmada¤, we ques-tioned the existing inhabitants whether theyplanned to stay there permanently, whetherthey felt they belonged to the neighborhoodand how they defined and perceived differentperiods of Elmada¤. In addition, we asked abouthow they interpreted the process of functional

transformation from a residential to an officearea in Elmada¤. Lastly, we asked about theimpact of the existing workplaces on the socialrelations of the neighborhood.

With the exception of two or three interviews,all the interviews were conducted by both of usin the languages of Turkish and English. Duringthe interviews with the Iraqi people, we pre-ferred to communicate in Turkish if it was possi-ble. In the cases of difficulty in communicating,we made use of an Chaldean-speaking translat-or who is an Iraqi immigrant teenager. The inter-views lasted approximately one or two hoursdepending on the potential and willingness ofour interviewees. We believe that the majorityof interviewees were receptive in terms of reveal-ing many of their experiences and thoughts. Wepreferred to take notes rather than to record theinterviews since we realized that the intervie-wees were less reserved and tense when theirwords were not recorded.

Chapter II : The emergence of a neighborhood: historical background

A better understanding of the current socialpanorama in a locality such as Elmada¤ neces-sitates a historical analysis of the macro trans-formations and associated restructuring of theurban form. In this chapter, the overall changesoccurring in the urban society and space in the19th century Istanbul and in the surroundingneighborhoods of Elmada¤ are examined in orderto provide a ground of comparison amongdifferent patterns of development. Besides, weanalyze social and spatial atmosphere of Elma-da¤ in its emergence period by investigatingcertain institutions located there. Thus, we aimto provide clues for the residential patterns andsocio-spatial fragmentation in Istanbul in the19th century.

Transformation of the urban form in Istanbul in the 19th century

During the 19th century, the penetration ofcapitalism and the modernization attempts ofgoverning elites were the two major events thataffected the Ottoman Empire economically,


11

politically and socially. Indeed, these two fac-tors were also influential in shaping the urbansphere and social relations in the Ottomanland. The emergence of new international com-mercial relations (in particular after the Anglo-Ottoman Commercial Treaty of 1838), the reor-ganization of the bureaucracy, the transfor-mation of communication and transportationsystems and the adoption of Western lifestylebrought along new urban patterns (Keyder andOncu, 1993, 9). During this period, there alsoappeared new urban policies, a new type ofurban administration, new institutions and thespread of new building types. However, due toweakening economic and political power of theOttoman administration, this process couldonly produce a partial regularization of theurban fabric (Çelik, 1986, xvi).

The expansion of capitalism, the moderniz-ing reforms and the population growth led tothe evolution of new residential patterns too. Inthe traditional residential pattern of the Otto-man Empire, ethnicity and religion (compliantwith the millet system) were influential inthe urban segregation (Tekeli, 1992, 6). So, theclassical Ottoman settlement model was char-acterized by a differentiation of ‘mahalle’saccording to ethnic and religious criteria ratherthan social class4 (Duben and Behar, 1991, 29).Notwithstanding this traditional ethnicity-basedsettlement pattern, there emerged new residentialmodels as a new social differentiation pattern

arose in Istanbul by the 19th century. Two of theresidential representations of the new socialsegmentation were the construction of woodenvillas (köflk) and luxurious apartment build-ings. Villas of the Ottoman Pashas on the sea-shores and the European-style apartment housesof the Levantine and non-Muslim bourgeoisiewere the symbols of bureaucrats’ and bourgeoi-sie’s social and cultural influence on the socio-spatial fabric of the city.

Row houses and apartment dwellings, someof which could still be witnessed in Elmada¤,were mostly built during the late 19th century.The completion of the avenue between Taksimand Pangalt› in 1869 facilitated the construc-tion of stone houses in Niflantafl› and Teflvikiyefor the affluent social groups eager to assumethe European lifestyle. As Mübeccel K›ray pointsout, these new apartments symbolized the birthof the modern middle class, which involved

Photo 4 Row houses built as charity houses by theSaint-Esprit Church on the Harbiye Çay›r› Street

and then transferred to Foundation Directory (Vak›flar Müdürlü¤ü).

Photo 5 Surp Agop Row houses on the Elmada¤ Streetbuilt in the mid-19th century.

4 Nonetheless, despite this generalization, there were also instances of districts where non-Muslims lived withMuslims.


non-Muslim professionals and merchants (1998,138-141). Indeed, these western style apartmenthouses first appeared in non-Muslim neighbor-hoods such as Tünel, Beyo¤lu, fiiflli, Niflantafl›,Cihangir, Elmada¤ and so on. Row houses, target-ing lower-income groups of non-Muslim com-munities, such as small merchants, craftsmen,artisans and low-level bureaucrats, were mostlybuilt in relatively modest settlement areas5.

Around the turn of the century the landscapeof the city became a bifurcated one: Galata andPera on the one hand as representations of themodern, Western façade of the city, and thehistorical peninsula on the other as the site oftraditional and predominantly Muslim groups.The split deepened as the penetration of West-ern capital intensified. Likewise, symbolic dis-tance enlarged between the traditional lifestylepursued mostly by Muslim communities resid-ing in neighborhoods such as Fatih, Beyaz›t,Aksaray, and the Western lifestyle followed bywealthy groups composed mainly of non-Muslimmerchants, Ottoman bureaucrats and foreignerswho were dwelling in the new apartment housesor the wooden villas in the peripheral areas ofthe city (Tanyeli, 1998, 140). Within this frag-mented form, there also emerged a new statushierarchy among neighborhoods. While newlydeveloped areas like Niflantafl›, Pera, Yeflilköyand suburban settlements between Kad›köyand Bostanc› became high-status districts, thehistorical peninsula and the shores of theGolden Horn began to lose prestige and trans-form into slum areas due to the construction ofmilitary barracks, industrial plants and dock-yards.

By the late 19th century, there was also ademographic transformation in Istanbul, as theurban population began to expand because ofthe waves of migration coming from the territo-ries where Ottomans were defeated by foreignpowers. This demographic growth, along with

the factors mentioned above, induced the expan-sion of the spatial form on three main axes. Thenew settlement areas were scattered fromTaksim to fiiflli, from Tophane to Dolmabahçe,and lastly from Dolmabahçe to Befliktafl, Teflvi-kiye and Niflantafl›. As the city expanded towardsthe north and northwestern directions, Harbiye-fiiflli axis, which was only a country road in the1840s, became one of the main arteries with itsresidential settlement by the end of the century6.

Emergence of Elmada¤ as an enclave of Catholic community

Until the 1840s, outer edge of Beyo¤lu was theTopçu K›fllas› (Artillery Garrison) and Talimhane(training area for the soldiers) in Taksim. In thenorthern parts of Taksim, there were only a largeChristian cemetery (Grand Champ des Morts)and a pasture (De Amicis, 1993, 62-64). After thegreat plague in 1560, the area lying towards thenorth of Taksim was granted as the cemetery tothe non-Muslim communities of Istanbul forthe sanitary purpose of burying the dead out-side the residential areas of the city. Thus, theland between Taksim and the Divan Hotel todaywas conferred to the Latin Catholics, while thezone stretching out to the Military Museum wasbestowed to the Armenians (Marmara, 1999, 30-33)7.

The area that extended from Taksim to Pan-galt›, that is today’s Elmada¤, was almost emptyin terms of settlement in the mid-19th century.Construction of large institutional buildingspaved the way for the settlement process. SurpAgop Hospital (1837), Artigiana (1838), St. -Esprit Church (1846) and Notre Dame de SionSchool (1856), which will be depicted below indetail, were among the significant buildingsof this early era8. The predominance of theseCatholic institutions gives clues about thesocial characteristics of the new settlement9. So,

5 Except the one in Akaretler, which was built to prevent a threat of fire around Dolmabahçe Palace (Çelik, ibid.137).6 Likewise, in 1865 Teflvikiye and Niflantafl› became connected to the Taksim-fiiflli artery (Çelik, ibid, 42). 7 After a new epidemic in 1865, it was prohibited to bury the dead here since Taksim area already became a

residential district and a new burial ground around fiiflli was given to the Armenian community. Similarly, theCatholic cemetery was later moved to Pangalt›. See also, Seropyan (1994, 185-186) on Armenian cemeteries.

8 The information on these institutions is mainly based on our interviews with their representatives. 9 In that area, there was also Mekteb-i Harbiye (today’s Military Museum), which was built in 1847 and gave its

name to the district of Harbiye. This complex was the one and only large Ottoman-Muslim building among theseCatholic institutions. However, the fact that it was located near Niflantafl› makes us consider it beyond Elmada¤’ssocial fabric.


13

it seems that this area was formerly establishedas a Levantine neighborhood with all the basicmodern urban institutions, i.e. a church, a hos-pital and a school. It is highly probable thatother Catholic communities of Istanbul, mainlyCatholic Armenians moved there after the set-tlement of Levantines. Correspondingly, RinaldoMarmara claims that the name of the Pangalt›district comes from an Italian Levantine calledGiovanni Battista Pancaldi, who owned a bistro-restaurant there in the 1860s (2000, 57).

Catholics in Istanbul were the members ofthe Saint-Esprit Church and they were generallycalled the Latins. The two main groups withinthe Catholic community of Istanbul were theLevantines and the Ottoman Catholics10. TheLevantines were the European migrants whoworked in the embassies and top-managerialpositions of foreign companies or were the

owners of commercial and industrial companiesin Istanbul and other big cities of the Empire.They were not recognized as a distinct commu-nity (i.e. millet) since they were not Ottomansubjects. They immigrated to the Ottoman landin large numbers, particularly after the Ottoman-British commercial treaty of 1838 and the Tan-zimat decree of 1839, which provided them neweconomic opportunities, including the right toprivate property. The Levantine elite dwelledmostly in the European districts of Istanbul,such as Pera and Galata, until new settlementareas began to develop in Harbiye-Pangalt› in thelate-19th century11. The residential movementof Levantines towards Harbiye-Pangalt› fromPera took place in parallel with the constructionof the Saint-Esprit Church. This also symbolizesthe shift of the more Westernized componentsof the Ottoman society towards the north ofthe Galata-Pera region.

In addition to the Levantines, the Latincommunity included also Armenian and GreekCatholics who were subjects of the Sultan(reaya). Among them, Catholic Armenians weremore populous than the Greek ones, who origi-nally emigrated from the islands. These twogroups were the most Western-oriented segmentsof the Ottoman society due to their strongeconomic and social relationships with theLevantines.

Photo 6 and 7

Different views of Vatican Embassy located on the ÖlçekSokak (today Papa Roncalli Street).

10 The population of the Catholic community in Istanbul rose from 20,000 to 26,000 from the mid-19th century to1900, and it began to decline by the mid-20th century (Roussos-Milidonis, 1999, 88).

11 Personal correspondence with Rinaldo Marmara. His book presenting more historical information about theemergence of Pangalt› will soon be published by the fiiflli Municipality.


Catholic Armenians who had a higher eco-nomic standing owing to their closeness to theLevantines were in a complicated position sincethey were socially segregated from the OrthodoxApostolic Armenian community (also called asGregorian Armenians) who represented the sheermajority of the Armenians in the Ottoman land.The millet system of the Ottomans provided asocial and political order where the religionserved as the main social denominator for theinner organization of the communities. To pre-vent any challenge to their already establishedpower, the Orthodox Armenian Church refusedthe idea of acknowledging Catholic Armeniansas a distinct millet by the Sultan12. The conflictbetween Orthodox Armenian and CatholicArmenian groups13 reached one of its peaks in1827, when Catholic Armenians of Istanbulwere expelled to Ankara, with the support ofthe existing Orthodox Armenian patriarchate14.However, just three years later, in 1830 Mah-mud II recognized Catholic Armenians as a com-munity of its own (millet) and later in 1878, thisprivilege was officially certified in the BerlinConference, where France and Austria repre-sented the interests of the Catholics in theOttoman Empire in the name of Pope Leon XIII(Roussos-Milidonis, 1999, 91).

Surp Agop Hospital15 run by the ArmenianCatholic community initiated the first settle-ment in the area. The construction of the hospi-tal was decided in 1831, and the constructionactivities took place in 1836-37. Between 1840sand 1908 the hospital was supported, alongwith other Greek, Armenian and Jewish hospitalsby the donations of the Sultans16. There wasalso a three-floor boarding school in KöstebekStreet, called Leyli Agopyan Okulu (1860). In1884-1888 concrete row houses were built onElmada¤ Street to provide economic support forthe hospital. Indeed, row houses, along withnew apartment buildings were a novelty in theexisting housing stock of Istanbul and they first

12 In the 1831-32 there were also Protestant missionary activities among Armenians, although they were not assuccessful as the Catholic ones. “Ermeniler”, ‹stanbul Ansiklopedisi, Tarih Vakf› Yay›nlar›.

13 Akabi Hikayesi, a novel written by Hosvep Vartan in 1851, represents an interesting example for the dispute ofsects among Armenians. Vartan (1816-1879), as an Ottoman Armenian Catholic author wrote various articles onthe conflict between Gregorian and Catholic Armenians.

14 Information based on http://www.agos.com.tr/osmanli/3_ucuncudevir.htm15 According to Rinaldo Marmara, it was then known as Saint Jacques French Catholic Hospital (2000, 56-58).16 Based on a brochure on the history of the Surp Agop Hospital prepared by the Surp Agop Foundation.

Photo 8 The present-day view of Surp Agop Hospitallocated on the Cumhuriyet Street.

Photo 9 The Saint-Esprit Church.


15

appeared in the non-Muslim neighborhoods ofIstanbul (Tekeli, 1992, 18). Both the row housesof the St. - Esprit Church and the Surp Agophospital were rented cheaply to the poor andneedy Catholics living in Elmada¤17.

The construction of the Saint-Esprit Churchin 1846 and the opening of the Notre Dame deSion School in 1856 on Cumhuriyet Street (thenPangalt› Street) are other examples of the Cath-olic Church’s activities in Istanbul18, whichinfluenced the northward expansion of the city.In 1840, Monsignor Hillereau constructed thebuilding that serves today as the Vatican Em-bassy, in front of the old Armenian cemeteryand at the mid-point of Artigiana barracks andSurp Agop hospital. At that period the area,called Icadiye, was unoccupied and far fromthe crowd of the city center. In 1845 Hillereaustarted the construction of Saint-Esprit Churchas well as the priest house and a year later hemoved his own residence to the vicinity ofthe Saint-Esprit Church. Then in 1849, heconstructed a large building in Pangalt› Street(today Cumhuriyet Street) consisting of a bish-opric palace and a priest school. MonsignorHillereau moved back to Pera in 1855 due to the

complaints of his followers about the remotenessand inaccessibility of his residence in Elma-da¤. However, after the big fire in Pera (1870), thebuilding began to be used again as the house ofthe monsignors19 (Marmara, 2001, 58). Saint-Esprit Church gained the status of cathedral bya Vatican decree in 1876.

The priest school on Pangalt› Street was rent-ed as a boarding school by the monks of theSaint Vincent de Paul (14 April 1855) who hadpreviously managed a school in Galata. Howe-ver, a year later the building was transferred to

Photo 10 The house of Monsignor Roncalli, the futureJohn XXIII. (source: Toplumsal Tarih, Jan 2001)

Photo 11 A ceremony conducted in front of the house of Monsignor Roncalli in 1913.

(source: Toplumsal Tarih, Jan 2001)

17 Surp Agop houses are still rented at very low values mainly to the community members. 18 In the 1870s, the power competition between Italy and France over the Catholic missionary activities and the

control of Catholic educational and humanitarian institutions in the Ottoman Empire resolved with the realign-ment of the Vatican along with France in opposition to Italy. Thus, France and the Vatican seem to emerge as themost influential actors in this new European settlement area.

19 Another significant figure of the Latin Catholic community in Istanbul was Monsignor Roncalli. He was the unof-ficial representative of the Pope and the head of the Istanbul Latin community between the years of 1935-1944.He was known as “Friend of the Turks” and dwelled for ten years in the Vatican embassy, behind the Notre Damede Sion High School before becoming the Pope (John XXIII) in 1958. Ölçek Street, previously called as Cedidiye(maybe because of the novelty of the settlement area) was renamed as Papa Roncalli Street on December 2000.


the Notre Dame de Sion sisters and since thenit has been used as a private secondary schoolexcept for a short suspension of education dur-ing the 1st World War years20. During the Otto-man era, France and the Catholic communitiesof Istanbul were economically supportingthe school (Sezer, 1999, 94). In addition to thechurch and Notre Dame de Sion School, theVatican representatives were also providingcheap education and accommodation for theneedy members of the community. The Saint -Esprit School on Ölçek Street and the rental rowhouses located on the Harbiye Çay›r› Street weremanaged by the church. The representative ofthe embassy asserted that Foundations Directory(Vak›flar Müdürlü¤ü) appropriated these rowhouses in the 1930s and 1940s. He also addedthat the school of the Saint Esprit Church wasclosed down in the mid-1940s (in accordancewith the unification of education policy of thenew regime).

Another significant Catholic settlement nearPangalt› is Artigiana, which originally emergedas a shelter for the Italian artisans and sculptorsin 1838. Levantines of Belgian origins were themain sponsors for the construction of woodenbarracks. In 1967, the area was rebuilt with thesupport of Cevdet Sunay, and converted to amodern rest home. Today, this complex servesas a house for the needy, populated mainly bynon-Muslims. It is run by the Artigiana associ-ation, and financially supported by the rents

collected from its own properties and by dona-tions of various organizations.

The settlement in the area gained pace in the1870s and 1880s, mainly as a result of the con-struction of the horse-driven tramline betweenTaksim and Pangalt›, in 1881. This line was con-verted to an electrical tramline in 1913. A signif-icant pattern in this period was the spread ofnew concrete apartment buildings around theTaksim area, including Cumhuriyet Street, asmentioned in the previous section. In the 1920s,Talimhane (the area that lies between Taksimand Elmada¤) became a prestigious neighbor-hood filled with luxurious, stylish apartmenthouses (Ça¤atay, 1998). Correspondingly, duringthe same period, the Muslim cemetery in Ayaz-pafla was removed and the area was permeatedby tall apartment buildings that exist until today.

In the early 20th century, although Elmada¤was prevalently a non-Muslim neighborhoodinhabited by Armenians, Greeks and Jews, therewere also a few Muslim families. They weremostly Muslim top-bureaucrats attracted by aEuropean lifestyle. ‘Arif Pafla Apartman›’ and‘fiakir Pafla Apartman›’ represent the spread ofthis new Western lifestyle among Muslim upperclasses. Arif Pafla, who was a member of Sar›ca-zade family and a top bureaucrat in the Ottomanadministration in the turn of the century, is atypical example of the Western-minded high-position bureaucrats of the empire: he ordered

Photo 12 People leaving the church after the religiousceremony at Saint-Esprit Church on 8th July 1919.

(source: Martinez, 1996)

Photo 13 The same street today.

20 Notre Dame de Sion High School still operates as a private school. Though it became a secular educational insti-tution, it was a missionary school when it was launched in the mid-19th century.


17

a new modern apartment to Architect Pappa in1902 (Ö¤renci, 2001, 27). Arif Pafla building stillexists in Elmada¤ Street and inhabited by artistsand intellectuals21, whereas fiakir Pafla buildingis already ‘reconstructed’ and transformed to atall inelegant office building.

Just before the declaration of the Republic, in1922, Elmada¤ was part of the Pangalt› adminis-trative region, which was then one of the 32Police Station Zone in Istanbul. At that time,Pangalt› consisted of the area between Taksimand fiiflli, and it included 62,427 people (Mar-mara, 2000, 58).

Evolution of surrounding neighborhoodsIn this section, the historical transformation ofthree neighborhoods that are located in thesame vicinity will be briefly presented in orderto provide a ground of comparison for examin-ing different patterns of urban development inthe neighboring districts. The motive behindour choice of Kurtulufl, Teflvikiye and Cihangiris primarily their geographical proximity, butalso the resemblance of the macro dynamics intheir emergence and evolution. We will try to

discuss in the conclusion section, the role ofspatial and social characteristics in the transfor-mation of these neighborhoods.

Kurtulufl (Tatavla)22

Kurtulufl, located on the northwestern part ofElmada¤, is separated from it by the Dolapderevalley (today Dolapdere Street). The area wascalled as Tatavla23 until the big fire in 1929. Itwas one of oldest settlements developed beyondthe city walls in the Ottoman Istanbul. The areawas inhabited by Greek sailors who were caughtand brought to Istanbul when the Ottoman navyconquered the Sak›z (Sisam) Island. The Greeksailors, who began to work in the Kas›mpafladockyard, settled down in Tatavla and thus thereemerged a wholly Greek neighborhood datingfrom the 16th century.

The neighborhood became lively in terms ofpopulation and social life in the 19th century,when it acquired an almost autonomous statuswith the declaration of the Tanzimat. At thatperiod, its population was around 20,000 peopleand it had a dynamic Greek town atmospherewith several Orthodox churches, schools, tav-erns, grape yards and gardens. Accordingly, Mus-lim Istanbulians called Tatavla “little Athens”.In addition to its taverns, dancers and fondnessfor music, in the 19th century, Tatavla was knownmainly for its traditional carnival, which wasorganized before Lent24. The peak of the carni-val was the last day before the Lenten period,which was called Baklahorani. Indeed, theTatavla carnival had its most brilliant daysduring the occupation years of 1918-1922 andlasted during the Second World War years.

In the first part of the 20th century, there arethree significant episodes in the history of Tatav-la. First, the advent of new transportation tech-nologies transformed the socio-spatial fabric ofthe neighborhood. The expansion of the horse-driven tramline to Tatavla in 1911 (fiiflli Rehberi,1987, 34)25 and its evolution to an electrical

Photo 14 The view of Pangalt› Street(today Cumhuriyet Street),

taken around Artigiana buildings in the late 19th century.

21 Füreya, Ismet Kür, P›nar Kür and Zeynep Tunuslu can be named as examples of the residents of this building inthe last fifty years.

22 The information on Kurtulufl is mainly based on (Türker, 1998).23 The name of the area, Tatavla, means “barns” in Greek, since it was used as the pasture for the Sultans’ horses

after the Ottoman conquest of the city. 24 Lent is forty days fasting period before the Easter in the Orthodox religion.25 Although the horse-driven tramline began in 1881 along the axis of Voyvoda-Tepebafl›-Taksim-Pangalt›-fiiflli, it

reached Tatavla in 1911.


one in 1914, induced the development of luxu-rious tall apartment buildings on Tatavla Street,which is known today as Kurtulufl Street. Thesecond noteworthy development was the occu-pation of Istanbul by the Western forces between1918-1922 and the intensification of Greek na-tionalism in Tatavla. However, as the Turkisharmy took back Istanbul in October 1923, theupper strata of the Greek community left thecountry, while new families from peripheralGreek neighborhoods moved to Tatavla for safe-ty reasons26. Last but not the least, the big fire

of 1929 was an important event for the neigh-borhood since it ruined most of the woodenhouses and marked the end of an era. In fact,the renaming of the neighborhood (as Kurtulufl)and its streets by the administrators of the newregime was in accordance with the nationalistatmosphere of the era.

After the late 1950s, Greeks lost their major-ity status in Kurtulufl as they began to leave thecountry after the Wealth Tax (1942), the Sep-tember 6th and 7th events (1955) and the 1964decree on Greek population. During the 1970s,its social composition began to transform as thenumber of Turks emigrating from Anatoliaincreased. Today, Kurtulufl is a predominantlymiddle-class neighborhood populated by boththe remaining non-Muslims who moved therewith a motive of preserving their communalbonds, and middle class wage earners.

Teflvikiye Teflvikiye, one of the most prestigious residen-tial areas of Istanbul since the late 19th century,represented another facet of the Westernizationmovement in the city. Although it later becameconnected with the northward expansion ofthe Galata-Beyo¤lu axis, this area was initiallydeveloped by the move of the Sultan from theTopkap› Palace to his new residence in Dolma-bahçe in 1853. The spread of residential areas tothe hills of Befliktafl increased at the turn of thecentury, as the ruling class followed the Sultanswho moved successively to Dolmabahçe andY›ld›z Palaces27.

The name of the Teflvikiye neighborhood isrelated to the attempts of Sultan Abdülmecid toencourage28 settlement in the area as he movedto Dolmabahçe Palace. The Teflvikiye mosque,built in 1854, is one of the most important signsof this encouragement. The construction of themosque triggered the expansion of the Befliktaflarea towards the hills in the second half of the19th century. Thus, Teflvikiye, previously a hunt-ing and military shooting ground during the

Photo 15 Teflvikiye Mosque built during the Abdülmecid era (source: Istanbul Ansiklopedisi).

26 Orhan Türker argues that after the declaration of the Republic, the greatest concern for the inhabitants of Tatavlaand other non-Muslim neighborhoods of Istanbul such as Elmada¤ was the language problem, since many ofthem did not speak Turkish at that time.

27 ‘Abdülhamid Y›ld›z’a yerlefltikten ve has bendegan›n› yak›n›na toplamak arzusuna düfltükten sonra, Niflantafl› vehavalisi bostan kulübelerinden, inek ah›rlar›ndan kurtularak vükela yata¤› koskoca bir mahalle olup ç›km›flt›.’(Alus, 1995, 96)

28 Encouragement means “teflvik” in Turkish.


19

reign of Selim III, became an official neighbor-hood in 1883. It was then composed of 5,293people, 616 households, 39 shops, 33 gardensand 1 mosque (Akbayar, 1994, 257).

The building composition of the neighbor-hood was distinguished by the large kagirkonaks (mansions built of stone and brick) ofthe Muslim top-bureaucracy. Subsequent tothe development of the Taksim-fiiflli axis by the1920s, these two- or three-story houses weretransformed into tall luxurious apartment build-ings designed for the urban upper strata.

Teflvikiye preserved its reputation in theearly Republican era, thanks to the settlementof well-educated capital owner immigrants whohad been forced out of Thessaloniki after theBalkan wars. Their settlement in the neighbor-hood endorsed the prestigious image of theneighborhood as a European urban settlement,although almost all districts were losing popu-lation in the first half of the century. Later on,the excessive growth of the city in the aftermathof the Second World War affected this area aswell. The residential character of the neighbor-hood decreased, as the central business districtexpanded towards the north along the Taksim-Mecidiyeköy axis29. Today, along with the offi-ces and shops, Teflvikiye is still inhabited byhigh-income and high-status groups of the city.

CihangirThe neighborhood was named after the mosqueof Cihangir, built in 1559-1560 in memory ofCihangir, son of the Kanuni Süleyman andHürrem Sultan, who died at a very young age

(Üstdiken, 1994, 430). Despite the prevalenceof this gorgeous mosque, Cihangir was a mod-est residential area for Christians and Jewsuntil the 19th century. The development of theneighborhood paralleled the growing promi-nence of the Galata-Beyo¤lu area, which becamethe core of the Westernized segment of the cityand the loci of economic activities and foreignembassies. Accordingly, it became a predomi-nantly non-Muslim residential neighborhoodin the 19th century and attracted prosperouspeople more receptive to Western-lifestyle. Thisfostered the construction of luxurious apartmentbuildings and stone houses in the vicinity at theturn of the century.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Cihan-gir was a highly heterogeneous neighborhoodwhere Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Levantines andMuslims dwelled together. However, the mixedcomposition of the neighborhood began to dimin-ish and became more homogenized by the mid-20th century as a consequence of the departureof well-to-do non-Muslim population (Ayd›n,1996) and the subsequent settlement of newTurkish emigrants from Anatolia. Like Kurtu-lufl, Cihangir seemed to lose its brilliance fromthe 1960s to the 1990s.

However, Cihangir began to stand out fromits neighboring districts with the beginning of agentrification movement. The transformation ofBeyo¤lu to a vibrant commercial and entertain-ment center in the late 1980s affected Cihangirtoo. Thus, proximity to this new center of attrac-tion and its beautiful view of the Bosphoruscreated a rent gap in Cihangir. As artists, intel-lectuals and academics moved to this pictur-esque neighborhood and renovated the historicbuildings, Cihangir became trendy, particularlyfor the bohemian bourgeoisie. The scarcity ofland due to its specific spatial patterns resultedin constant rising of the rent values. Consequent-ly, today Cihangir became one of the few gentri-fied areas of the city (Uzun, 2001, 102-107).

* * *

Bearing in mind the relative emptiness ofthe area beyond Taksim before the mid-19th

century, we suggest that the concession of theElmada¤ area to the Catholic community with

Photo 16 Panorama of Cihangir (source: Istanbul Ansiklopedisi).

29 The decline of the Teflvikiye population from 15,607 to 12,281 between 1985 and 1990 (Akbayar,1994, 257) isanother sign of its functional transformation from a residential to a commercial area.


the construction of a hospital reflects the polit-ical and social environment during the fall ofthe Ottoman Empire. The peripheral location ofthe land granted by the Sultan to the Surp AgopHospital seems to be a sign of the uneasinessof the Gregorian patriarchate and the Ottomanruling elite towards the Catholic Armeniancommunity. The Ottoman rulers, endeavoringto preserve the status quo, were unenthusiasticabout the rise of new communities on the basisof religion (as a millet). Yet they were pressuredby the powerful European forces to officiallyrecognize and authorize new communities, suchas the Catholic Armenians. It should be notedthat economic factors were also influential inthis process since Catholic Armenians wereamong the prominent bankers of the Empireand had very close relationships with therepresentatives of European states. The rulersseemed to solve the issue by settling the Cathol-ics in the outskirts of the established urbanareas, i.e. on the area lying beyond Beyo¤lutowards Pangalt›-Tatavla.

Within a few decades after its emergence,Elmada¤ acquired a high status and until themid-20th century it continued to be a livelyprestigious neighborhood inhabited by Western-ized segments of the society. Albeit this overallprestige, there was a hierarchy of status amongthe streets of Elmada¤: while Pangalt› Street(today called Cumhuriyet Street) was the moreesteemed section, the inner streets were mostlypopulated either by the middle strata or thepoorer members of the Catholic communitywho congregated around the Vatican Consulateand the Saint-Esprit Church. Likewise, some ofthe non-Muslim minorities who emigrated fromAnatolia during the 1940s-60s settled in thedownhill streets of Elmada¤ and benefited fromthe cheap housing, religious and educationalfacilities provided by the Vatican representa-tives. Indeed, a 76-year-old Armenian Catholicinterviewee stated that they moved to Elmada¤in the late 1920s, after the death of his father,and enjoyed the free schooling and the cheaphousing provided by Saint-Esprit Church. Healso indicated that, ‘in the past poor Catholicswere assisted by Vatican embassy. They had aschool; they were taking us to the church. This

is why there were many Catholics here. Therewere Armenian, Italian, Greek and AssyrianCatholics’30.

The Catholic community, which was oncepowerful, seems to disintegrate as the signifi-cant institutions of the community lose powerdue to the nation-state formation attempts ofthe new Republic. The law on the unification ofeducation and other related regulations lead tothe closure of the Saint-Esprit School for boysand the shrinking of other Armenian schoolslocated in the neighborhood. The weakening ofthe Catholic institutions and the dissolution ofthe community went hand in hand. In the past,the co-existence of these Catholic institutionsand affluent members of the community en-hanced the settlement of the needy as well.

In sum, Elmada¤ seems to emerge in the mid-19th century, as a non-Muslim neighborhoodinhabited mainly by established Istanbulianfamilies, in particular Levantines, but also Catho-lic Armenians, Jews and Greeks who had closecontact with European embassies and compa-nies in the closing era of the Ottoman Empire.The prevalence of Catholic institutions andfashionable apartment buildings styled anddecorated in the European style indicated the‘Western’ and ‘modern’ (alafranga) aspect ofElmada¤. The non-Muslim character of theneighborhood in its early period reflects thespatial segregation of Ottoman Istanbul basedon the millet system. Accordingly, while Elma-da¤ was characterized by Catholic communitiesand institutions, Teflvikiye appeared as a Mus-lim, Cihangir a Levantine and Tatavla a Greekneighborhood in the late 19th century.

The micro cosmos of Elmada¤ in the late19th and early 20th centuries provides us someclues about the physical and social organiza-tion of the city. The influential economic andpolitical transformations of the era denoted anarray of restructurings in the urban arena aswell. While historical peninsula was degradingas a residential area, Elmada¤, Teflvikiye andCihangir became known as prestigious neigh-borhoods of the turn of the century. Despite thissimilarity, Elmada¤ was differentiated from itsneighboring districts, particularly due to geo-graphical factors, i.e., its being located on the

30 ‘Eskiden yoksul Katolikler Vatikandan çok yard›m görürlerdi. Okullar› vard›, kiliseye götürürlerdi. Bu yüzdenburada Katolikler çoktu. Ermeni, ‹talyan, Rum Katoli¤i, Süryani Katolikler vard›.’


21

main axis between Taksim and the newlydeveloping areas towards fiiflli. Unlike Elmada¤,the other three neighborhoods, Teflvikiye,Cihangir and Kurtulufl were relatively protectedhavens located on the peripheral niches of themain axis. These spatial differences wouldaffect the evolutions of these neighborhoodsduring the rapid urbanization period in theaftermath of the Second World War. The luxu-rious apartments on the Cumhuriyet Streetwould transform into office buildings and thuslose their residential functions before theircounterparts in other neighborhoods. Besides,the prevalence of formal Catholic institutions,which contributed to Elmada¤’s attractivenessin its heydays, would have a reverse impact onthe fate of the neighborhood during theRepublican era.

Chapter 3 : Elmada¤ as a ‘home’ forimmigrants

The aftermath of the Second World War was aperiod of significant political, economic andsocial transformations for Turkey. A notewor-thy consequence of these transformations wasthe demographic revitalization of Istanbul withthe waves of migration flows from Anatolia.These macro changes resulted in the socio-spa-tial restructuring of the city and of its segments.In this section, we will try to analyze how vari-ous immigration waves influenced the socio-spatial texture of Elmada¤.

On the political sphere, the transition to amulti-party system, the international trend ofpolitical liberalism and the populist policiesbrought forth significant ramifications. In theeconomic domain, the postwar era witnessedthe re-structuring and the boom of the Turkisheconomy in line with the new internationaleconomic order. Istanbul regained its primarystatus and became the main gate to the West asthe national economy became more and moreintegrated with international markets. Corre-spondingly, significant transformations occurredin the rural areas of the country through theshift of the rural economy from self-subsistence

to market-oriented production, the change oftraditional landownership and agricultural pro-duction patterns, the decline of the agriculturalland size per family members and the rapidmechanization of agriculture.

In addition to these transformations, theworsening of employment opportunities inrural areas, and increasing economic and socialattractiveness of the cities, such as better jobopportunities, the presence of a wider range ofgoods and services, from the education to thecultural sphere, resulted in the massive immi-gration towards the big cities of the country bythe late-1940s (Köymen, 1999; Baydar, 1994, 406-410). Consequently, Istanbul became the mostattractive destination for immigration in the1950s and 1960s, as the center of opportunitiesfor newcomers. In contrast to the long demo-graphic stagnation of the early Republicanyears, the urban population in Istanbul soaredat an unprecedented rate by the 1950s, owing tothis massive rural-to-urban migration (Zaim,1987, 321)31. Accordingly, the population inthe Istanbul metropolitan area jumped from975,000 to 2,141,000 between 1950 and 1965,with an annual increase of 80,000 persons dur-ing these 15 years (Tekeli, 1992, 40-58).

Average annual increase of population inIstanbul between 1950-1985

1950-1965 80,000 persons

1965-1970 140,000 persons

1980-1985 225,000 persons

Source: (Tekeli, 1992, 56)

Although the annual increase would behigher for Istanbul in subsequent decades,the rate of immigration never reached that ofthe years between 1950 and 1965 (Ifl›k, 1996).According to Ferhunde Özbay, even though thefirst wave of immigration to Istanbul in the1950s and early 1960s was enormous comparedto the later ones, the first wave ‘did not reallyalter the main characteristics of the populationin the city, simply because they comprised alesser proportion of the total province popula-tion’ (Özbay, 1997, 116). She argues that, ‘thefirst wave migrants not only were dominated by

31 According to census reports, the proportion of urban population jumped from 25.0% to 43.9% between 1950 and1980 (Zaim, 1987, 321).


the earlier inhabitants, but tended to become‘urbanized’ as well’ (ibid, 117).

Rapid urbanization continued after the1960s although its pace slowed down by the1980s. Thus Istanbul’s population rose from 3million in 1970 to 4 million in 1975, 6 millionin 1985 and 9 million in 1995 (Keyder, 2000,174). Tekeli argues that both the internationalemigration in the 1970s and the populist poli-cies (which improved the income levels in theagricultural sector through subsidies given tosmall producers) affected the gradual decreaseof rural-urban immigration (Tekeli, 1998, 15).

The last massive internal immigration waveto Istanbul occurred after the mid-1980s. Thisrecent flood was distinct from the earlier onessince it was predominantly Kurds emigratingfrom the southeastern Anatolian rural areas as aresult of increasing political tension and inse-curity. Lastly, in addition to these internalimmigration flows, there have been internation-al ones to Istanbul.

Elmada¤ experienced a double-sided migra-tion movement by the mid-20th century; itsimultaneously witnessed the departure of itsnon-Muslim inhabitants and arrival of variousimmigrant groups. Consequently, this innercity neighborhood has acquired a heterogene-ous character since the 1950s. In the followingpages, we will present the journeys of these dif-ferent migrant groups in Elmada¤ by depictingtheir socio-economic characteristics and theirpresence in the neighborhood.

Exodus of non-Muslims

The picture depicting Elmada¤’s social makeupshould take into account the absence of the for-mer inhabitants of the neighborhood, namelythe non-Muslims. This section is devoted to ananalysis of the departure of non-Muslims fromthe neighborhood, which has had a giganticimpact in shaping the social texture of the dis-trict. Below, we first scrutinize the nation-stateformation policies of the new Republic and theconsequent decrease in the population of thenon-Muslim community in general. Subsequent-ly, we will present our observations based on

the interviews conducted with the Armenianswho are still living in Elmada¤ and the oneswho left the neighborhood by moving either toa foreign country or to another district in Istan-bul. We also try to substantiate this sectionthrough the interviews done with writers ofsome of the Armenian journals.

The new Turkish Republic inherited amulti-ethnic society from the Ottoman Empire.Even though the non-Muslim communities,namely the Greeks, Armenians and Jews, werein minority in terms of demographic propor-tions, they were influential actors of the socialand economic life. Yet, the formation of thenew ‘Turkish nation-state’ necessitated the cre-ation of a homogeneous population accordingto the Republican elites32. This ideology, whichwas supported by nationalist policies, aimed toTurkify various spheres, including the econo-my and demographic composition. The ensuingsituation has created negative consequences fornon-Muslim minorities of the country.

The economic sector was one of the domainsthat Turkification policies used to promoteMuslim-Turks against non-Muslims. An earlyinstance of Turkifying the capital and labormarket was the Law no. 2007 that was ratified bythe National Assembly on 4 June 1932. Accord-ing to the law some arts and service sector jobswere allocated exclusively to Turks. This lawseemed to promote low-skilled workers particu-larly since they included jobs that did notnecessitate large amounts of capital or skill,such as street peddling, driving, door keeping,and so on (Aktar, 2000, 113-125).

In the early Republican era, there were alsoattempts to restructure the demographic com-position of Anatolia through both official andunofficial ways. One can name either the popu-lation exchange agreement between Greece andTurkey (1923-24) or the expulsion of Jews fromÇanakkale, K›rklareli and Edirne during Trakyaevents (1934) as examples of Turkification ofAnatolia (Aktar, 2000, 71-100). The forcedmigration of non-Muslim minorities fromAnatolia to Istanbul continued with the ‘Law ofSettlement’ which led to the deportation of theArmenians from central Anatolian rural areas

32 Kemalist nationalism defines the criteria of membership to the Turkish nation on the basis of ethnic andreligious identity. So, the nation-state building project led to dramatic changes in the social and demographiccomposition of Turkey (Aktar, 2000, 131-134).


23

to Istanbul in 1934. Correspondingly, ‘minori-ties report’ of the 9th bureau of the RepublicanPeople’s Party (1942) was characterized by asimilar attitude towards non-Muslim minoritiesof the country. According to the report, minori-ties did not integrate and were not loyal to theprimary group of the country. For instance,Armenians were establishing small communi-ties in Anatolia and were trying to increasetheir population. The sentiment of the politicalelites of that period was that Anatolia should be‘cleaned’ of Armenians by deporting them toIstanbul. Their numbers would subsequently bedecreased further through facilitation of theirimmigration to abroad or population exchangeagreements (Akar, 2000, 185-186). As illustrat-ed on the report, the official ideology was prior-itizing the Turkish speaking groups over non-Muslims.

As a consequence of these Turkificationefforts in Anatolia, Istanbul became a centerfor all minorities, namely Greeks, Armeniansand Jews, during the mid-1930s. However, thespread of pro-Nazi and the anti-Semitist ideolo-gies amongst the political elites and the main-stream media during the Second World Warjeopardized the situation of minorities inIstanbul as well. New practices such as “20 kur’aihtiyatlar”33 (20 precautionary groups) intensi-fied the discriminatory nationalist discourse,which in turn reinforced the fear of the non-Muslims.

The peak point of the nationalist atmos-phere was the Wealth Tax. This new tax, imposedby the Ankara government in 1942 in the midstof the war, aimed to gather the war profits of theblack market traders in the hands of the govern-ment. However, this served as a legitimizingground to transfer the wealth of the minoritiesto Muslims. Indeed, non-Muslims constituted87% of the overall tax liables (mükellef), where-as Muslims represented only 7% of them (Akar,2000, 225). Likewise, the amount of the tax

paid by the non-Muslim minorities constituted53% of all the revenue collected, whereasMuslims paid 36,5% and settled foreigners10,5% of the total amount in Turkey. The pro-portion of the tax collected in Istanbul was 70%of the amount amassed in the whole country.Correspondingly, non-Muslims (i.e. Armenians,Greeks, Jews and Levantines) paid 70% of thetax collected in Istanbul (Akar, 2000, 160-161).

Ayhan Aktar argues that the aim of theWealth Tax of 1942-43 was to transfer wealth aswell as jobs from non-Muslims to Muslims andcontribute to the process of creating a Muslimbourgeoisie. Aktar’s analysis of title deed recordsof Beyo¤lu-fiiflli, Eminönü, Fatih, Kad›köy,and the Prince Islands districts during 1942-43demonstrates the wealth transfer from non-Muslims to Muslims, which was realized by realestate sales of non-Muslims (houses, shops andapartments in particular) (Aktar, 2000, 228-234).

Subsequent to the Wealth Tax, the 6th-7th

September events in 1955 and deportation ofGreeks of Istanbul by the 1964 decree fastenedthe decrease of the non-Muslim populationin Istanbul34 (Ayd›n, 1996, 500). Besides, thefoundation of the Israeli state resulted in theimmigration of 30.000 Jews to Israel during1948-49. In brief, the ‘insecure’ atmosphere andthe magnitude of the destruction caused bythese events gave rise to a massive immigrationof minorities, as demonstrated in the tablesbelow.

Demographic structure of Istanbul based onthe spoken language

1935 1950

Turkish 692.460 827.860

Greek 79.920 66.106

Armenian 39.821 42.207

Hebrew 26.435 28.114

Source: Baflbakanl›k ‹statistik Genel Müdürlü¤ü (1959 and1939) (cited by Akar, 2000, 203)

33 In the midst of the World War II, in 1941, 20 groups of non-Muslims (born between 1894-1913) were called formilitary service as a precaution. For R›dvan Akar this obligatory service was an example illustrating the attitudeof political and military elites who did not trust non-Muslims and saw them as ‘collaborator of the enemy’ (Akar,2000, 174-176).

34 With the Cyprus Conflict, the Turkish government abolished the 1930 agreement signed between two countriesand afterwards approximately 30,000-40,000 Greeks left Turkey. This number was higher than that of otherimmigration flows, which occurred due to the Wealth Tax and 6th-7th Events. The number of Greeks leaving thecountry increased after 1974 Operation and the coup d’état in 1980. Accordingly, the number of Greeks in Turkeyhad fallen to about 10,000 in 1983 (Ayd›n, 1996, 501).


Demographic structure of Turkey based on thespoken language

1935 1950

Turkish 13.899.073 20.947.188

Greek 108.725 89.472

Armenian 57.599 52.776

Hebrew 42.607 35.786

Source: Baflbakanl›k ‹statistik Genel Müdürlü¤ü (1959 and1939) (cited by Akar, 2000, 203)

In spite of the considerable shrinkage ofthe overall non-Muslim population in Turkey,there was an exceptional increase in the num-ber of Armenian and Jewish groups in Istanbulbetween 1935 and 1950. The forced migrationof these communities from Anatolia to Istanbulprovides an explanation for this atypical situa-tion. Yervant Özuzun draws attention toanother aspect of this population shift whichresulted in the replacement of the educatedbourgeoisie of Istanbul by an uneducated groupcoming from Anatolia: ‘Armenian bourgeoisiewhich came into being in five hundred yearsand the intelligentsia class belonging to thisbourgeoisie were demolished. A class whosemembers’ native language was Armenian,whose members were well-educated and speak-ing a few foreign languages and interested inevery branch of the fine arts, was destroyed inevery sense. This intelligentsia, this generation,

were replaced by people emigrated from Anato-lia, who were deprived of educational opportu-nities as well as unaware of cultural valuesand belonging to a feudal structure’35. (Agos,13.11.1998, cited by Akar, 2000, 217)

The interviews conducted in Elmada¤demonstrate a similar change in the composi-tion of non-Muslim inhabitants of the neigh-borhood. As a consequence of a double-sidedmigration movement, while non-Muslim urban-ites went abroad, Armenians of rural back-grounds came to Elmada¤. Thus, the neighbor-hood’s urbanite non-Muslim middle strata havebeen replaced by a new group of Armenianswith rural Anatolian origin having lower socio-economic status. As presented in the previous

Photo 18 An example of the houses whose ownershipwas transferred during the Wealth Tax era (Ölçek Street).

Photo 17 Harbiye ‹lkö¤retim Okulu, which is built on the land donated by an Armenian to the religious

minority foundations (Ölçek Street).

35 ‘Befl yüz y›lda meydana gelen Ermeni burjuvazisi ve bu burjuvazinin bir parças› olan ayd›n s›n›f› yok olmufltur.Ana dili Ermenice olan, iyi e¤itim görmüfl, birkaç yabanc› dil bilen, güzel sanatlar›n her dal›yla ilgili bir s›n›fherfleyiyle yok edilmiflti. Bu ayd›nlar›n, bu kufla¤›n yerini Anadolu’dan göçen, e¤itim olana¤› bulamam›fl, kültürde¤erlerinden habersiz, feodal yap›dan gelen insanlar›m›z alm›flt›r.’


25

chapter, Elmada¤ was initially inhabited byLevantines and non-Muslims. The most popu-lated groups were the Armenians and Greeks,though there were also Jewish and a very smallnumber of Turkish households36. All of ourelderly informants in the neighborhood con-firmed that this population composition contin-ued until the 1960s and 1970s, when thenon-Muslim residents of the neighborhood leftthe country in large numbers37. Before thesemassive departures, there were also familieswho had left the neighborhood in the earlyRepublican era. These early leavers were mainlyaffluent non-Muslims who were more vulnerableto the nationalist economic policies, as explainedabove. Indeed, we learnt that during the yearsthe Wealth Tax was extracted, there was atransfer of real estates from non-Muslims toMuslims in Elmada¤, too38. When we askedabout the Wealth Tax, one of our 75 years oldArmenian interviewees mentioned sorrowfully‘twenty groups of military service, Wealth Tax,6th-7th September events... Don’t open theseissues, don’t bleed our old wounds’39.

After their departures to abroad, a differen-tiation occurred among the non-Muslims whostayed. A significant part of Elmada¤’s non-Muslim inhabitants preferred to move to more‘modern’ districts of Istanbul, such as Kurtulufl,Pangalt› and fiiflli. The motivation to move wasboth related to an aspiration for modernity andto the comforting preference to live in neighbor-hoods where the population was predominantly

composed of non-Muslim groups. The move-ment from the old neighborhoods to the ‘mod-ern and Western’ districts indicates a socialmobility too40. One of our interviewees wholived in Çimen Street and moved to Pangalt› inthe late 1970s expressed this candidly: ‘thefamilies on this street were not rich; there wasa middle stratum. When [this neighborhood]began to degrade, the well off began to move. Atthe end of the 70s old acquaintances disap-peared. [...] Those who had the possibility left,those without stayed. The well-to-do eitherwent abroad or to a better neighborhood’41.

As a consequence of these departures, non-Muslims who once constituted the majority ofthe neighborhood have become a minority.Although until the 1950s and 1960s a quitenumber of Armenians, Greeks and Jews wereliving in Elmada¤, today it seems that onlylower-middle class old-aged Armenians live inthe neighborhood among the minority groups.As one of our interviewees asserted: ‘there arestill Armenians in the neighborhood but thewealthy left, only the economically deprivedstayed’42. Likewise a real estate agent in theneighborhood illustrated this transformationas such: ‘Old minorities were goldsmiths inKapal›çars›, merchants and wholesalers inSultanhamam, suppliers of auto spare parts inPerflembe Pazar›. Those who stayed have alower income and are mostly tenants’43. TheArmenians currently living in Elmada¤ areeither the economically deprived ones who are

36 Elmada¤ was also known as ‘Alt›nbakkal’ (golden grocery) because of the grocery shop of an Armenian calledLeon Alt›nyan. His shop was located by the fian Tiyatrosu.

37 During this immigration process, the destinations were mainly Greece for the Greeks; France, USA and Canadafor the Armenians; and Israel for the Jews.

38 In addition to transfers during Wealth Tax, there occurred confiscations due to ‘1936 statement’ which handedover minority foundations’ properties to the state. For instance, the land of today’s Harbiye primary school whichwas actually a donation of a non-Muslim, was appropriated by the government because of deficiency in thedocumentation (see photo 17).

39 ‘Yirmi kura askerlik, varl›k vergisi, 6-7 Eylül.. Hiç açma o konular›, deflmeyelim yaralar›m›z›’. 40 Kastaryano presents a striking account of this event for the Jewish community of Istanbul. She points at the

importance of timing of the movement to another neighborhood in attaining a higher status in the social rank:One would be denoted as ‘traditional’ if s/he could not move to fiiflhane-Kuledibi in 1920s, to Pera-Taksim in1940s and to fiiflli-Niflantafl› in 1950s. This mobility continued with Etiler and Bosphorus shores later on(Kastaryano, 1991).

41 ‘Çok zengin aileler yoktu bu sokakta, orta kesim vard›. Buras› bozulmaya bafllay›nca hali vakti yerinde olanlartafl›nmaya bafllad›lar. 70lerin sonunda eski tan›d›klar yok oldu. [...] ‹mkanlar› olanlar gitti, olamayanlar gideme-di. ‹yi olanlar ya yurtd›fl›na ya da daha iyi bir muhite gittiler.’

42 ‘Ermeniler hala var, ama maddi durumu kötü olanlar kald›, ileri gelenleri gitti.’43 ‘Eski ekalliyet, Kapal›çarfl›’da kuyumcu, Sultanhamam’da tüccar, toptanc›, Perflembe Pazar›’nda yedek parçac›y-

d›lar. Bugün kalanlar dar gelirliler, ço¤u kirada oturuyor.’


unable to move or the old inhabitants lackingthe energy to move. As one of our intervie-wees put it very briefly: ‘many died, manywent away’44. Thus very few of them have stayedin the neighborhood.

The departure of the non-Muslim minoritiesresulted in the emergence of vacant buildings,which in the long term served to solve theaccommodation problem of the early-comersfrom Anatolia. It seems that this has been oneof the factors behind the economic success ofthese early rural immigrants. Due to the heavytax burden and discriminatory policies, most ofthe non-Muslims were obliged to sell theirhouses below the actual value. Hence, the newAnatolian residents of Elmada¤ obtained theopportunity to be house-owners for relativelylower prices. Indeed, almost all of our intervie-wees who emigrated from Anatolia in the early1950s and 1960s told us that they bought theirhouses from non-Muslims. Consequently, as areal estate agent indicated, ‘now property own-ers are mostly Muslims, though in the past theywere non-Muslims’45.

In addition to the non-Muslim inhabitantsof Elmada¤, there were also non-Muslim arti-sans working in the streets of Elmada¤ andDolapdere until the 1960s-70s. One of our inter-viewees, a manager of a company importingtechnical spare parts asserted that: ‘in the past,masters of crafts were usually non-Muslims.The majority of the artisans working in smallhandicrafts, such as hardware dealers, carpen-ters, auto-repairers were Armenians. Therewere a few Greek masters as well. They mostlylived in Kurtulufl. They were skilful, very hon-est masters. We had very good relations. Thesemasters became old and then retired. They leftfor natural reasons, not because of external rea-sons.’46 However, even though these mastersleft for ‘natural reasons’, it is obvious that their

children did not take over their father’s job. Thediscontinuity of the father-to-son traditionamong the non-Muslim artisans seems to berelated to the demographic extinction of thereligious minorities in Istanbul.

Between the 1940s and 1960s, there emergeda non-Muslim counter-migration wave to Istan-bul. Both the policies aiming the Turkificationof Anatolia and the general rural-to-urbanmigration resulted in a substantial flood of non-Muslims from Anatolia. A representative of anArmenian journalist informed us about the aidcampaigns launched by the Armenian commu-nity that reinforced governmental policies onthe emigration of Armenians from Anatolia inthe 1940s and 1950s47. He also pointed to theconsequent social structure of the existingArmenian community in Istanbul shaped bythe predominance of those having rural back-grounds.

The Armenian immigrants coming fromAnatolia preferred to dwell in the locationswhere their community was living, such asSamatya, Kumkap›, Feriköy, fiiflli, Yeflilköy andBak›rköy. These residential choices were drivenwith a longing for living in a communal enclavewhere there were possibilities for schooling,going to church and neighborly relations withalike. Elmada¤ has been one of these locationsfor the Armenian immigrants coming fromAnatolia. Especially Catholic Armenians fromAnkara and Sivas constitute a sizeable groupamong the ones who arrived to Elmada¤.Indeed, as a 54 year-old female interviewee fromSivas stated, ‘in the 1970s, there were mainlyArmenians of Anatolian origin in Elmada¤.Only a few families were Istanbul-born. Therewere families from Yozgat, Sivas, Kayseri whohad been here for 20-30 years’48. A 76 year-oldCatholic Armenian who emigrated from Ankarain the late 1920s remembered the migration

44 ‘Ölenler çok oldu, gidenler çok oldu’.45 ‘Mülk sahipleri art›k ço¤unlukla müslüman, eskiden gayri-müslimdi.’46 ‘Eskiden ustalar ço¤unlukla gayri-müslimdi. Nalbur, marangoz, oto tamircili¤i gibi küçük el sanatlar›ndaki

sanatkarlar büyük a¤›rl›kla ermeniydi. Çok az da Rum usta vard›. Ço¤unlukla Kurtulufl’ta oturuyorlard›. ‹flleriniçok iyi bilen, çok dürüst ustalard›. Çok iyi iliflkilerimiz vard›. Bu ustalar yaflland›lar, emekli oldular, do¤al neden-lerle gittiler, d›fl nedenlerle gitmediler.’

47 One example of these campaigns is the opening of an Armenian boarding school in Üsküdar in 1948-1950. Thiscan be seen as related to the education of newly emigrated poor children from Anatolia.

48 ‘70’lerde Elmada¤’da genelde Anadolu do¤umlu Ermeniler vard›. Ancak bir-iki aile ‹stanbul do¤umluydu. Yozgat,Sivas, Kayseri’den gelme, 20-30 senelik bural› aileler vard›.’


27

of Armenians in the 1950s and 1960s as such:‘Anatolian Armenians poured out here. TheArmenian school in fiiflli opened its doors tothese newcomers. The children of these arriverswere taught there’49. It appears that the reasonsof Armenian immigration were also related tothe inadequacy of opportunities in provincialareas. A female interviewee born in 1928, whoimmigrated to Istanbul in the 1960s explainedthe reasons of immigration by emphasizingthe deficiencies in her hometown: ‘there wasneither a church, nor a school in Elaz›¤. Weimmigrated to Istanbul because we wanted thechildren to be educated, not to stay [ignorant]like us’50.

Most of the Armenians who emigrated fromAnatolia in the 1940s-1960s continued theirpath by immigrating abroad (mainly to theUSA, Canada or France). One of our femaleinterviewees, who emigrated from Sivas to Kur-tulufl in 1954 in her childhood, then lived inÇimen Street in the 1970s, and finally immi-grated to the USA in 1990 after the death of herhusband, provides an example for this group.The support of the relatives already at abroadmakes the immigration of Armenians easier.There are many similar examples of the chainmigration among Armenians of Anatolian ori-gins who first moved to Elmada¤ and endedtheir migration route abroad. The incentive forimmigrating abroad seems to be mostly eco-nomic since most of our non-Muslim intervie-wees affirmed that ‘home is not where you areborn, but where you earn your livelihood’51.

The analysis of these multi-stranded migra-tions reveals the pattern of social stratificationamong Armenians. The main differentiationwithin the non-Muslim community in Elmada¤seems to be between the ones of Istanbulianand Anatolian origins. In these terms theArmenian community seems to be fragmentedon the basis of social background. An old

Istanbulian Armenian interviewee illustratedthe circumstances of rural Armenians as ‘thenewcomers do not speak Armenian well, in facttheir language does not resemble Armenianspoken in Istanbul. [...] Their conditions werenot good; they were the peasantry in theirhometown. Here they worked in places likePark Otel, Pera Palas, as waiters, dishwash-ers’52. He continued his words by emphasizingdifferences of educational level between thesetwo groups: ‘people here [natives of Istanbul]were mostly noble, civilized and educated per-sons. People who came later, after the 48’-50’period were uneducated, underdeveloped,ignorant persons. They went to Armenianschools here. Of course not all of them were thesame, but most of them were like that’53.

Social stratification of the non-Muslimgroups was symbolized in the spatial segrega-tion of the neighborhood as well. The mostaffluent groups lived in the luxurious apart-ments of the Cumhuriyet Street before theyimmigrated abroad or moved to higher statusdistricts, such as fiiflli, Etiler. Likewise, middleclass Armenian urbanites lived in Ölçek andBabil Streets, whereas the non-Muslim immi-grants from Anatolia dwelled geographically atthe lower parts of the hill, such as Çimen andKüçük Bay›r streets. This spatial segregationalso points at a cultural differentiation amongnon-Muslims, since during the interviews eachgroup narrated the history of the neighborhoodfrom their own life-space without talking indetail about other non-Muslim groups.

A common theme expressed by Armeniansof Elmada¤ during the interviews was the nos-talgia for old days. In Elmada¤, mourning forthe ‘loss of the old golden days’ signifies ayearning for a period when non-Muslim house-holds were both economically and culturallyprivileged over other groups, such as immi-grants from Anatolia. Lamenting for past better

49 ‘Anadolu Ermenileri buraya ak›n ettiler. fiiflli’deki Ermeni okulu bu gelenlere kap›lar›n› açt›, bu gelenlerin çocuk-lar› burada okudular.’

50 ‘Elaz›¤’da kilise, okul yoktu. Çocuklar okusun, bizim gibi kalmas›n diye isteyerek ‹stanbul’a göç ettik.’51 ‘Memleket, do¤du¤un de¤il, doydugun yerdir.’52 ‘Gelenler Ermeniceyi pek iyi bilmezler, zaten konufltuklar› dil de ‹stanbul Ermenicesine pek benzemez. [...]

Gelenlerin durumlar› pek iyi de¤ildi, geldikleri yerde köylülük yap›yorlard›. Burada da Park Otel, Pera Palas gibiyerlerde çal›fl›yorlard›, garsonluk bulafl›kç›l›k, iflçilik yap›yorlard›.’

53 ‘Buradakilerin ço¤u asil, kültürlü tahsilli insanlard›. Daha sonra 48-50’den itibaren gelen kifliler okul görmemifl,geri kalm›fl, cahil kifliler. Burada Ermeni okullar›na gittiler. Tabii hepsi öyle de¤ildi ama ço¤unluk öyleydi.’


days indicates the efforts of a déclassé middle-class to maintain their old status and distinc-tion from ‘others’. The emphases on urbanorigins, the adoption of an urban lifestyleand deep-rooted Istanbulian origins were thethemes that we heard repeatedly during theinterviews. Surprisingly enough, the earlyAnatolian immigrants complained about simi-lar issues concerning social deterioration inElmada¤ and in Istanbul. The similarity ofnostalgic discourse about the degradation of theneighborhood will be discussed in more detailin the end of the fourth chapter.

As a final remark, we suggest that althoughElmada¤ seems to be an affluent non-Muslimneighborhood in the past, it seems that todaythe non-Muslims who live here are the oneswho are lacking social and economic upwardmobility possibilities. As some of the membersof the Armenian community ‘have promotedthemselves to better neighborhoods’ such asfiiflli, Elmada¤ has become ‘the place of abortiveArmenians’ that moved down the socio-eco-nomic ladder, as an Armenian journalist assert-ed54. However, we claim that this downwardmovement on the social hierarchy is relatedmore to their conditions of being an ethnicminority rather than to their individual incapa-bility. One of our observations supporting thisargument is the prevalence of their efforts beinginvisible in social life in Elmada¤. Both nation-alist governmental policies and micro-leveldiscriminations toward non-Muslims seem tobe influential in the intensification of politicalfear and the spread of a submissive behavioramong them. Hence, they give the impressionof being less enthusiastic and ambitious foreconomic success, unlike their Turkish coun-terparts who immigrated in the 1950s and1960s and became the ‘winners of massivemigration’, as will be discussed in the nextsection.

Pioneer immigrants of 1950s-1960s : thewinners of massive migration in Elmada¤

The fieldwork in Elmada¤ reveals that theimmigrants of the first massive wave constitutea significant group in the neighborhood. Theyare ‘the pioneer immigrants’ because they

arrived in Istanbul before than their co-localsand other members of their family. We prefer tocall these pioneer immigrants the ‘winners ofthe massive migration’ since today they seem tohave achieved significant upward mobility afterlong years of fierce struggle for success in thecity.

In Elmada¤, the majority of the early immi-grants coming from Anatolia between the late1940s and 1960s seem to immigrate voluntarily,compared to the ones who arrived after the1980s. Indeed, these early-comers to Elmada¤were the young single male members of theirfamily (they were between the ages of 15 and19) who were attracted by the opportunitiesthat the big city promised. During the inter-views, these pioneers stated that they cameto Istanbul because there were no possibilitiesof economic progress and education in theirhomeland, whereas ‘Istanbul was paved withgold’. Unlike the large immigrant group fromthe Black Sea Region in Istanbul (Özbay, 1992),most of the pioneer immigrants in Elmada¤originated from Erzincan and Sivas.

Elmada¤ was not the first destination inIstanbul for all the pioneer immigrants whoarrived after the late 1940s. The first stopoverwas the bachelor rooms in Feridiye (the arealying between Taksim and Tarlabafl›) for thesingle young men who arrived in Istanbul with-out any assets such as education, skill or money.They moved later to Elmada¤ as they accumu-lated some money to rent or buy a house in abetter neighborhood. These early-comers cameto Elmada¤ after re-uniting their families inIstanbul or after getting married to ‘a girl fromthe homeland’. For this group, the movement toElmada¤ signifies a first step in the upwardmobility, both in terms of capital accumulationand status differentiation. There is a close par-allel between the residential and social mobili-ty for the members of this group since most ofthem would continue their journey in Istanbulby moving to higher status neighborhoods,such as fiiflli and Gayrettepe, as they moved upthe socio-economic ladder in the followingyears.

Unlike the subsequent shantytown settle-ment trend that became almost the sole optionfor rural-to-urban immigrants in later years, the

54 ‘Baz›lar› daha iyi semtlere terfi ettiler. Elmada¤ ‘tutunamam›fl Ermeniler’in semti’.


29

early immigrants settled in disintegrating innercity areas, such as the neighborhoods on thehistorical peninsula or the ones that began to beemptied by the departure of the non-Muslims,such as Elmada¤, Tarlabafl› and Cihangir. Inthe 1960s, Elmada¤ was still a predominantlynon-Muslim neighborhood where only a fewTurkish families lived. As the neighborhoodheadman asserted: ‘when we arrived in 1964,there were very few Turks [here]. Turks werehere as shopkeepers. There were Greeks andArmenians, also Jews constituting around 40-50 households. The population in 1965 was13,000-14,000. Now the registered populationis around 4,000. It can be 5,000 including oneswho do not have a record. Neighborly relationswere very lively. There was no exclusion, butthey were not renting houses (to Turks), theywere renting only to their loved ones.’55 He alsoaffirmed that ‘people who come from Sivas orErzincan are mostly running coffeehouses orworking as doorman. They are deeply rootedwherever they start to live. In their first arrival,they lived in houses worse than shanty houses.When they became better off, they boughthouses, then they called their relatives to taketheir places.’56

As mentioned above, we prefer to call thesepioneer immigrants the ‘winners of the massivemigration’57, since they are today the wealthiestgroup in Elmada¤. A significant differentiationamong the pioneer immigrants lies between theones who came with no assets (such as educa-tion or capital) and the ones who brought someeconomic resources from their homeland. Theuneducated poor immigrants, especially theones who arrived before the 1950s seem toexperience a tough period, since they arrived in

Istanbul without any monetary and social capi-tal. As the pioneers of their family’s chainmigration process, they did not have any socialor communal networks to exploit. Accordinglythey earned their livelihood by working as wait-ers, porters, watchmen, water-sellers, doormenor shop assistants, i.e. in jobs that did notnecessitate any education or capital.

It should also be noted that these early com-ers benefited from the economic nationalism ofthe early Republican era. For instance, the 1932law mentioned above allocated some low-skilljobs exclusively to Turks in order to Turkify thelabor market. Thus, in consequence of this lawuneducated newcomers began to substitutenon-Muslims in low-skilled jobs. During theseearly years, the newcomers stayed either in cof-fee houses, bachelor rooms, or in the shops andwarehouses where they were working. ‘Hemfle-rilik’, i.e. communal networks (Erder, 2000)seemed to be useful for some in finding a job,especially low-status ones, such as waiters ordoormen. However, despite the role of commu-nal networks in finding employment and hous-ing, it seems that as a densely populated inner-city neighborhood, Elmada¤ inhabitants wereless depended on such relationships comparedto shantytown dwellers, due to the loose andmore atomistic character of social relationshipsin inner-city areas.

A very common profession among these earlycomers was ‘driving’. It provided the opportuni-ty for rapid upward mobility, especially for theearly immigrants who had no assets. One of ourinterviewees, who came from Sivas in 1946 andbecame the owner of several houses in Elmada¤in a few decades, confirmed this: ‘(When we

55 ‘1964’te biz geldi¤imizde [burada] çok az Türk vard›. Türkler de iflyeri olarak vard›. Rum ve Ermeni vard›, 40-50hane de Musevi vard›. 1965’te nüfus 13-14 bindi. fiimdi kay›tl› nüfus 4 bin, kay›ts›zlarla belki 5 bine ç›kar.Komfluluk çok canl›yd›. D›fllama yoktu ama [Türklere] kiraya ev vermezlerdi, sadece sevdiklerine ev verirlerdi.’

56 ‘Sivas, Erzincan’dan gelenlerin ço¤u kahveci, kap›c›. Onlar girdikleri yerde kök sal›yor. ‹lk geldiklerinde gecekon-dudan kötü evlere yerlefliyorlar. Palazlan›nca ev al›yor, yerlerine akrabalar›n› getiriyorlar.’

57 We conceived of this term while contemplating the notion of ‘elites of massive migration’ proposed by SemaKöksal and Nihal Kara. They define ‘the elites of massive migration’ in terms of their familial backgrounds, eco-nomic and social position and leading roles in the massive migration coming from their hometown. They alsodistinguish these elites by their father’s occupation, birthplace, level of education and their own occupation(Köksal S. & Kara N., 1990). Although the pioneer migrants of Elmada¤ did not have a familial, educational oreconomic superiority during the migration, they are today the elites of the neighborhood. These early-comers aremore successful in economic terms; today they are property-owners of most of the houses inhabited by theimmigrants who arrived later. The economic boom era of the 1950s and early 60s was an important factor in thefast upward mobility of these provincial entrepreneurs. Correspondingly, they name Menderes along with Özalas the most important figures of Turkish history.


first arrived) we worked as drivers of taxis,trucks and buses. We could not do anythingelse, since we were uneducated’58. Taxi drivingseemed to be the most rewarding job for theearly Anatolian immigrants in Elmada¤. In par-ticular during the Menderes era, the transporta-tion sector grew up as new roads were openedand automobiles were introduced to inner-citytransportation. The young industrious immi-grants were not too late to profit from the post-war economic boom. Most of them owned theirown cars after a few years of working as driversand continued to improve their economicstanding after purchasing the first car. Whilesome of them continued their career in thetransport sector, others shifted to the businessof construction of buildings.

In brief, the leading occupations for theearly immigrants in Elmada¤ in the 1950s and1960s varied between jobs that did not necessi-tate any capital or education (e.g. waiter, water-seller, watchman) and the ones that requiredsome money or skill (e.g. driver, butcher, restau-rant-owner). Subsequently, in the 1970s, as themassive migration continued and the need forhousing increased, construction of buildingsbecame the favorite economic activity for thepioneer immigrants who had already accumu-lated the necessary economic capital and estab-lished the social network.

Elmada¤ presented a good opportunity forlocal small-scale contractors until the mid-1980s.Three story buildings of 40-60 square metersdesigned for single families dominated the orig-inal physical landscape of Elmada¤. For thatreason, contractors were obliged to buy at leasttwo of them to build an inhabitable dwelling.The build-and-sell business, which was a com-mon mode of house production between the1960s and 1980s, is a system of exchange wherecontractors undertake the responsibility of con-struction in return for the urban land of propertyowners (Tanyeli, 1998, 111). Ifl›k and P›narc›o¤luargue that this is a system that is of advantageto middle-class landowners since the contractorobtains the land suitable for house constructionin return of flats in the new buildings (2001,104-110). Yet this general trend of build-and-sell activities favoring landowners, functions inreverse in Elmada¤, given that the propertyowners were predominantly non-Muslims.Building high-rise apartments by demolishingolder, low-rises was highly profitable for smallcontractors in Elmada¤, as most of the property-owners were compelled to sell their propertiesfor very low values. During the interviews weobserved that Anatolian origin landlords boughtthe houses from non-Muslims who fled thecountry, or moved to community rest homes orto their relatives’ places due to old age. It ispossible to suggest that non-Muslims sold theirproperties for very low prices and thus contrib-uted to the enrichment of new Muslim inhabit-ants of the neighborhood59.

Photo 19 A new apartment in Elmada¤, constructed inthe place of an old house through build-and-sell method.

58 ‘[‹lk geldigimizde] taksicilik, kamyonculuk, otobüsçülük yapt›k. E¤itim olmad›¤› için biz de baflka ifl yapa-mazd›k.’

59 One should also note that these build-and-sell activities demolished the picturesque physical texture of theneighborhood and led to the spread of new unattractive buildings. This has also been one of the factors that pre-vents the gentrification of Elmada¤. (see photo 19)


31

The build-and-sell activities lost their signif-icance by the mid-1980s for the contractorsworking locally in Elmada¤ due to the unreal-ized PIYA project. During 1980s and early 1990s,all kinds of construction activities in the neigh-borhood were prohibited because of the PIYAproject which was planned to transform Dolap-dere and Piyalepafla Boulevards into high-riseoffice areas. Small-scale construction becameunprofitable for local contractors of Elmada¤also because of the increasing significance of thelarge-scale construction companies and cooper-atives in the housing sector. Seeing that thebuilding contracting was becoming less lucra-tive, the pioneer immigrants shifted to anothersector, namely real estate agency. Today, mostof the notable real estate agencies of Elmada¤are the early-immigrants of the 1950s and 60swho were involved in the construction of thebuildings in the neighborhood.

In addition to the initial economic difficul-ties, the early-comers seem to have experienceda cultural alienation too. The prevailing cultur-al superiority of ‘urbanites’ over ‘villagers’ inthe discursive realm (Öncü, 1999) and the pre-dominance of non-Muslims in Elmada¤ inten-sified the difficulties that these early comersexperienced. All the pioneer immigrants statedthat there were only a few Turkish families inthe neighborhood when they first arrived.During the interviews, the informants explicit-ly expressed the uneasiness and alienation theyfelt in their early years in Elmada¤. They seemedto feel like they arrived in an alien world wherethey were total strangers: ‘We were living in amansion in Kemaliye, but when we came here weinhabited an old ruined house. (Non-Muslims)did not give us a house for rent. They did notgreet us for 18 years. They did after manyyears.’60

The cultural exclusion the early-comers ex-perienced in Elmada¤ fueled their ambition foreconomic success. They tried to succeed eco-nomically and thus make money to compensate

their cultural alienation. One of our intervie-wees, who has become a remarkably wealthyperson at the end of tough years he experiencedafter his emigration from Rize at the age of 12,expressed his fervor as such: ‘my goal wasalways to earn money and to reach somewhere:to earn money, to run my own business.’61 Thisambitious attitude gave rise to a fierce struggleand tough competition to ‘conquer the city’,which has always been viewed as somethingalien. For the rural immigrants, the city and its(‘real’) dwellers resisted accommodating them,so they tried to be one of them by the power ofmoney. As one of them suggested during theinterview: ‘here, the money holder has thepower’62. Remarkably enough, almost all of theearly comers from Anatolia told us astonishingsuccess stories, which can be regarded as theeconomic achievements of ambitious entrepre-neurs.

In short, we can conclude that early arriversto Elmada¤ became the winners of the massivemigration, thanks to their economic achieve-ments, mostly as small entrepreneurs in activ-ities such as building contracting and realestate. However, despite all these bright storiesof wealth accumulation, most of them implicitlyexpressed their uneasiness about ‘being unedu-cated’. The great attention paid to the educationof their children seems to be an endeavor tocompensate this feeling of inferiority. In fact,almost all the second-generation immigrantsare either university students or graduates.

Besides the importance given to the educa-tion of children, moving to better neighbor-hoods is another means for a higher statusattainment, as one of our interviewee suggested:‘during that period [when we lived here] middlestrata families were living in this neighborhood.[Elmada¤] later became impoverished. [...] Wemoved to S›racevizler in ‘77. If I rank there asnine out of ten, here [Elmada¤] gets a minus.’63

This indicates a correspondence between resi-dential and socio-economic mobility. Most of

60 ‘Kemaliye’de konaktan gelip, burada eski döküntü bir eve yerlefltik. [Gayrimüslümler] kiralik ev vermediler, 18sene selamlaflmad›lar. Sonradan aç›ld›lar.’

61 ‘Hedefim hep para kazan›p bir yerlere varmakt›: para kazanmak, ifl sahibi olmak.’ 62 ‘Burada paras› olan›n sözü geçer.’63 ‘O devirde [biz buradayken] bu mahallede orta halli aileler oturuyordu. Sonradan yoksullaflt›. [...] 77’de S›race-

vizler’e tafl›nd›k. Oras› on üstünden dokuzsa, buras› [Elmada¤] eksi al›r.’


the pioneer immigrants left Elmada¤ and boughtnew houses in higher status neighborhoods,such as fiiflli, Mecidiyeköy, Gayrettepe, as soonas they accumulated the required capital.

During the interviews, the economicallysuccessful immigrants who arrived earlier inElmada¤ sought to differentiate themselves byexpressing adamantly their cultural superiorityover the latecomers. For them, ‘in the past therewas respect in Beyo¤lu, now there is no respect.In the past they put hats when they went out.Newcomers are uneducated like us. They have20-30 children [...] After Kurds moved in, theneighborhood was messed up. They do noteven know how to walk in the street’64.

The pioneer immigrants from Anatolia, whohave already adopted urban middle class atti-tudes, articulate their grievance about new-comers by complaining about the abundance ofKurds, coffeehouses and unemployed youthhanging out on the streets of the neighborhood.In this context, the new means of status achieve-ment for the Anatolian-originated immigrantshave become the claims about lifestyle, i.e. cul-tural capital. In the field of status competition,wives of the early immigrants seem to play animportant role in the acquisition of culturalcapital. It is interesting to observe that most ofthe men stated that their wife ‘is very cultured’.

In the 1980s and 1990s there occurred a newwave of massive migration to Istanbul and thusto Elmada¤, which differed in character fromthe one in the 1960s. While the previous onewas more driven by voluntary immigration ofpeople allured by the better economic opportu-nities that Istanbul promised, the recent one wastypified by the semi-obligatory immigration of

Kurds. In the next section, we will elaborate onthe characteristics of this wave.

Kurdish immigrants in Elmada¤

In this section of the project, we discuss thesituation of Kurdish immigrants who havesettled down in Elmada¤ after mid-1980s. Inorder to shed light on this issue, first of all weevaluate the Kurdish migration flows in Tur-key. Afterwards, we cite our interpretations andexplanations derived from the in-depth inter-views that we conducted with Kurdish immi-grants in Elmada¤.

The Eastern and Southeastern regions ofTurkey where most Kurds are currently livingare the least developed parts of the country65.The high unemployment rates and prevailingeconomic difficulties within the region after the1950’s have led many Kurdish people to immi-grate to either provincial cities or the cities inthe Western region. Though Kurdish immigra-tion to the metropolises has been a long-termprocess, it is important to make a distinctionbetween two different periods of internal immi-gration in Turkey. The first migration flowduring 1950-1960’s is different in its nature incomparison to the mass flux of Kurds to othercities after mid-1980s. During this period, hugenumbers of Kurds moved out of the ‘[S]outheastto cities like Istanbul, often resulting in a proc-ess of ‘natural’ assimilation into the Turkishmass’ (Poulton, 1997, 208). While the reasonsbehind this first migration flow were mostlyeconomic, the recent migration flows of Kurdshave not only economic but also political andsocial characteristics66.

64 ‘Eskiden Beyo¤lu’na ç›kt›¤›m›zda hürmet vard›, flimdikilerin hürmeti yok. Eskiden soka¤a fötr flapkayla ç›k›l›rd›.fiimdi gelenler bizim gibi tahsilsiz okul yüzü görmemifl, 20-30 tane çocu¤u var. [...] Kürtler geldi, buralar bozul-du. Sokakta yürümeyi bile bilmiyorlar’.

65 A comparison between the western region and the eastern region of the country in the mid-1990’s reflects thesignificant socio-economic inequalities between the regions. The western region’s per-capita gross national prod-uct was $ 2,000, and the eastern region’s was $ 700. The western region’s total fertility rate was 2, the easternregion’s is over 4. The western region’s infant mortality rate was 43, the eastern region’s was 60. The westernregion’s illiteracy rate was 14, the eastern region’s was 26. The western region’s number of health personnel per1,000 people was 3.2, the eastern region’s was 2. (‹çduygu, Romano and Sirkeci, 1999, 9).

66 According to a study conducted by the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) in1996 in Diyarbak›r, economic reasons constitute the ground for their migration such as hardship of livelihood,non-possession of territory, unemployment. On the other hand, after 1990s the reasons have shifted from eco-nomic to more political reasons, such as the evacuation of villages, burning down of the villages or the incidentsin the region. Indeed, 73,7 per cent of the interviewers who came to Diyarbak›r after 1990 stated they immigrat-ed due to “compulsory reasons” (TMMOB, 1999, 344-45)


33

The escalation of the war between the PKK(Kurdish Workers Party) and the TurkishArmed Forces since 1984 has immenselyincreased the magnitude of the Kurdish immi-gration. There is no exact number of civilian,PKK and Security forces causalities. Dependingon the figures from Yeni Yüzy›l and TurkishDaily News, Kiriflçi and Winrow suggest that asa result of clashes between PKK and Turkishsecurity forces 20,181 people, including 5,014civilians, have been killed between 1984 andthe end of 1995 (1997, 126). On the other hand,Östen Wahlbeck depending on figures cited byCumhuriyet, puts forward an alternative designby referring to both Kurdish and Turkishsources, which are considerably different fromeach other. According to official Turkish sour-ces, 9,595 persons lost their lives in the conflict,of which 3,028 were civilians. On the otherhand, Kurdish sources estimated in August 1994that 34,000 persons died during the civil war, ofwhich 5,000 were civilians (1999, 47).

The state of emergency (OHAL) in Easternand Southeastern Turkey issued in July 1987gave civilian governors the right to exercise‘certain quasi-martial law powers, includingrestrictions on the press and the removal fromthe area of persons whose activities are believedinimical to public order’ (Kiriflçi and Winrow,1997, 128). Under the emergency rule the gov-ernment steadily increased its military pres-ence in the provinces67. The Anti-Terror Law ofApril 1991 which defined a terrorist act in abroad and ambiguous way led to many deten-tions and human rights abuses with the ban onany declaration of ideas.68 Difficulty in provi-sion of safety, livelihood, health, education andother services for people in their village, orlands were only some of the reasons that forcedvillagers to abandon their settlements.

The village-guard system [koruculuk], whichwas introduced in April 1985, intended toenable villages to defend themselves from thePKK. In addition to security concerns, it wasalso believed that the village-guard systemwould provide income to areas that were eco-nomically depressed. However, over the yearsthe village guard system has become a source ofserious complaint. The situation is particularlydifficult for the Kurdish villagers who findthemselves in the middle of the conflict since ifthey do not participate in this system they willface repression from the army and their villagesmight be destroyed; and if they do participatethey will find themselves in conflict with thePKK (Wahlbeck, 1999, 47).

Especially the villages rejecting the village-guard system have likely been evacuated and attimes burned by the security forces due to ananxiety either from the difficulty of provision ofsecurity or for their possible assistance to PKK.Kiriflçi and Winrow suggest that also the PKK,in accordance with its ‘Decree on Village Raids’has attacked and burned ‘non-revolutionary’villages that do not support ‘the national strug-gle for liberation’ (1997, 133). Consequently,several villagers have chosen to immigrate tourban centers in order to avoid coming undereither the government or PKK pressure.

Today there are 20 to 30 million ‘internallydisplaced persons’ in the world (UNHCR cited inTAV, 2001, 14)69. According to the data provid-ed by UNHCR, Turkey is placed the fifth onthe list of countries with highest internallydisplaced persons population. At least 3,500villages and cultivable fields have been partiallyor totally evacuated and approximately 3 mil-lion people were displaced in Turkey in theviolent atmosphere created by the Kurdishproblem within the last 10 years (TAV, 2001,

67 According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the normal level of Turkish troop deployments inthe area was around 90,000. This number had risen to 160,000 by June 1994. By the end of 1994, taking intoaccount also the number of police, Special Forces and village guards, there were 300,000 security forces deployedin eastern and southeastern Turkey. The size of the security forces in the areas remained roughly the same dur-ing 1995 (Kiriflçi and Winrow, 1997, 130).

68 Terrorist actions are defined as actions involving repression, violence and force, or the threat to use force, by oneor several persons belonging to an organization with the aim of changing the characteristics of the TurkishRepublic including its political, legal, social, secular and economic system (Article 1).

69 There is no consensus on the meaning of the concept Internally Displaced Person (IDP). However, people whoare subjected to violence, armed conflict or pressure and are forced to leave their places and homes but haveremained within the borders of their country are called IDPs (TAV, 2001, 14).


15; Oberdiek, 2001, 111; Wahlbeck, 1999, 47;‹çduygu, Romano and Sirkeci, 1999, 9)70.

As a result of the policy concerning evacua-tion of villages, the Kurdish population hadto move to the regional centers like Van andDiyarbak›r. In the 1990 census, the populationof the central town of Van was calculated as155,623 and Diyarbak›r as 373,810. The popu-lations of two cities in 2000 were found to be as284,464 and 551,046 with an increase of 60,9percent and 38,8 percent respectively. Alongwith the cities such as Diyarbak›r and Vanwhere the Kurdish population is dense, citieslike Istanbul and ‹zmir in the West, as well ascities such as Antalya, Adana and Mersin haveaccommodated intensive migration flows. Someof the Kurdish immigrants have sought for asy-lum in European countries71.

Resonating from the eastern hand of the case,the western counter part, especially Istanbul,exhibits peculiar complimentary features onthis issue, notwithstanding that there is no reli-able data on the number of Kurds who haveimmigrated to Istanbul since the 1980s. However,Kiriflçi and Winrow identify Istanbul as the citywhich has the highest Kurdish population inTurkey (1997). A detailed poll of Istanbul resi-dents was published over five days in Milliyet,in February/March 199372. Poulton suggests thatdespite possible sampling errors, the figuresgiven in this poll appear realistic. Given theKurds are probably 15-20 percent of Turkey’stotal population, the number of Kurds is esti-mated as some 8 per cent of Istanbul’s popula-tion. According to the poll, the Kurds are lowon the social scale, since they are the mostnumerous among the unemployed and havingthe lowest educational qualifications. Thosewho declare themselves as Turks have thehighest average wages followed by those whodeclare themselves as ‘Muslim Turks or Mus-lims’, then those who consider themselves asTurks but from Kurdish parents and finally thosewho declare themselves as Kurds. According to

a recent report (conducted in Diyarbak›r,Batman, Istanbul, Van, ‹zmir and Mersin) byGöç-Der, 52.7 per cent of the interviewed Kurdishimmigrants earn less than 100 million ($71)Turkish liras in a month while the rest has amonthly income of 100-200 million Turkishliras (Radikal, 13 April, 2002). 93.7 per cent ofthe Kurds wanted to return to their home villa-ges due to homesickness, having adaptationproblems and feeling like strangers in the citiesthey are living.

The governmental program called ‘return tothe villages’ has been discussed since 1997.According to IHD, one of the most seriousobstacles for a return is the state of emergencyin the region (Salman, 2001, 28). A secondproblem arises from the fact that village guardswho stay in the evacuated villages have occu-pied the lands of the people who have immi-grated. The migrants’ association Göç-Der stat-ed that they forwarded 17,914 petitions for areturn to the villages to the Grand NationalAssembly of Turkey (Salman, 2001, 28).

Like many Kurds in the western cities ofTurkey, the ones we interviewed in Elmada¤immigrated to Istanbul mostly because of polit-ical reasons. They explained that though theeconomic conditions in their villages were notvery bad, they had to immigrate to the Westerncities since they were under oppression in theirvillages. Two of the Kurdish intervieweesexpressed their discontent about being in themiddle of the conflict between Turkish armedforces and PKK: ‘either we would give in to theTurkish state or we would go to the mountains.Although there were many people who havechosen the latter, this is not the solution. Withthe emergence of Hizbullah, the slaughtersstarted. Therefore, we were obliged to immi-grate’73. Another interviewee explained thatshe was compelled to immigrate to Istanbulsince she was under oppression in Mufl becauseof her political ideas.

70 However, according to the report of Turkish Grand National Assembly in 1997, the number of villages and ham-lets evacuated by the security forces were put as 3,428 and the number of people displaced were cited as 378,335.

71 The number of asylum applications by Turkish nationals between 1985 and 1994 is 330,121 (Böcker, 1996, 57).Although there is no source about the percentage of the Kurdish asylum seekers, it is estimated that they accountfor the majority of the asylum applications in the last two decades.

72 Milliyet, 27 and 28 February and 1,2, and 3 March 1993 (cited in Poulton, 1997, 247-248).73 ‘Ya devlet taraf›na geçecektik ya da da¤a gidecektik. Da¤a gidenler çok oldu ama da¤a gitmek de çözüm de¤il.

Hizbullah da bafllay›nca, katliamlar yapt›lar, mecbur kald›k, geldik’.


35

The Kurds in Elmada¤ mostly immigratedfrom the cities of Batman, Diyarbak›r, Siirt andTunceli to Istanbul after 1990. They usually fol-lowed a chain migration process. A relative sentas a pioneer-immigrant to the city prepared theappropriate conditions for the other membersof the family, such as finding a job and a shel-ter74. After her/his position was better off, theother members of the family in the hometownjoined her/him. The network among the Kurdsis stronger than any other ethnic groups inElmada¤. Throughout this network, they findjobs, housing and new friends. A Turkish inter-viewee who observed the solidarity amongKurds suggested that: ‘the Kurds really watchover each other [...] They shop from their [Kurds’]groceries. They are very respectful and veryhardworking. They help each other when theothers are setting up their businesses’75. Howe-ver, this solidarity does not mean that theKurds in Elmada¤ constitute a homogenousethnic group in which each of them shares thesame political ideas with the others. For exam-ple, the Kurds we interviewed in Elmada¤ arehighly politicized and very critical of otherswho have different political opinions or who arenot actively involved in politics. They despisesome other Kurds by labeling them ‘assimilated’to the Turkish society. Rather than uncondi-tionally supporting each other through anethnic bound, they are close to other Kurdswho have adopted the same political perspec-tives. In brief, the basic criterion for solidarityis the shared political views rather than merelyan ethnic identity.

The interviewees suggested that the com-munication language at their homes is Kurdish.Speaking and teaching Kurdish to their childrenhas a special importance for them in terms ofpreserving and perpetuating their Kurdishidentity and culture: ‘My mother does not knowhow to speak Turkish. At home we speak Kurd-ish. The children, even the ones who were born

in Istanbul, speak Kurdish. In fact, they speakKurdish better than the ones in Diyarbak›r’76.The question of speaking Kurdish plays a pivot-al role in the construction of Kurdish identityby enabling them to fantasize themselves asmembers of an imagined Kurdish community.

When asked if they are planning to returnback to their villages, nearly all of them said‘yes’. One of our interviewees expressed hishomesickness as such: ‘In my dreams I still seemy village. I am playing football with my friends.We are running in the clouds of dust. Thedreams about here are always troubled’77. How-ever, keeping the dreams of returning back totheir villages does not mean that it will cometrue. This desire of returning back to the homevillage seems an impossible dream, which canneither be realized nor given up. One of ourinterviewees said that he has never liked livingin Istanbul. Though he has his own futureplans about returning to his hometown, his sixchildren from different age groups do not sharetheir fathers’ opinion. Especially the Kurdishchildren born in Istanbul appear more orientedto the life in Istanbul.

It is striking that in Elmada¤ the Kurds aremostly running groceries, which they define asone of the most difficult jobs. According tothem, only the Kurds can achieve this jobbecause they have no social life and they areaccustomed to difficult conditions. As one ofthe Kurdish interviewees argued: ‘The onescoming from the [East] work very hard. Sincethey have suffered a lot there, they work hardhere for the sake of their emancipation [...]They have already been familiar to every diffi-culty there such as starvation, torture [....] Wedo not expect any thing for ourselves now. Butour children will see good days [...] When youbelieve in something you should not give upyour hopes and keep on saying that I willachieve this’.78 Their ambition, along with their

74 Usually this pioneer-immigrant was the eldest son of the family.75 ‘Kürtler birbirlerine çok sahip ç›karlar [...] Kendi bakkallar›ndan al›flverifl yap›yorlar. Hürmetkarlar, hürmet

etmesini biliyorlar. Bir de çok çal›flkanlar. Birbirlerine yard›m ediyorlar ifl açacaklar› zaman’.76 ‘Annem Türkçe bilmiyor. Evin içinde Kürtçe konufluluyor. Ufaklar, ‹stanbul’da büyüyenler bile Kürtçe biliyor,

hem de Diyarbak›r’dakinden daha iyi biliyor’.77 ‘Hâlâ rüyamda memleketi görüyorum. Arkadafllarla top oynuyoruz. Kofluyoruz toz toprak içinde. Burayla ilgili

gördü¤üm rüyalar hep s›k›nt›l›’.78 ‘Oradan gelenler ifle as›l›yor. Orada çekece¤ini çekmifl, burada ifle as›l›yor, kurtulmak istiyor [...] Adam orada

herfleyi görmüfl, açl›k, iflkence [...] Kendimize birfley beklemiyoruz. Ama çocuklar›m›z görecek [...] Birfleyeinand›¤› zaman insan o umudu kaybetmemeli, hep yapaca¤›m demeli’.


hope, is the only asset they have for establish-ing a good future for their children.

During our study, we came to meet Armenianpeople who had immigrated from the Easternside of Turkey to Elmada¤ after mid-1980s,along with the Kurds. For example, an Armenianshopkeeper suggested that his twenty relativesdwelling in Elmada¤ right now immigrated toIstanbul in 1986 from a village near Siirt, whichwas recognized as an Armenian village in thepast. With the passage of time, many Kurdsstarted to settle in the village, whose settlementdid not give rise to any conflict between differ-ent ethnic groups. After the 1980s, the risinginsecurity in the region due to the accelerationof clashes and the emergence of Hizbullahmade them leave their villages altogether. Whatis striking in this story is that some of the rela-tives of our interviewee, his uncle and grandfa-ther, call themselves Kurds and at home usuallyspeak Kurdish and thus they are known as Kurdsin Elmada¤. Far from being eternally fixed inan essentialised past, identity is somethingconstructed in cultural representations, as thisexample shows. Becoming, rather than being isthe right verb in defining the formation of anidentity which in fact is a never ending process.

Consequently, we think that defining andrestricting the immigration flow from theEastern side to the West after the mid-1980sjust with the Kurdish immigration is mislead-ing. Although the Kurdish people have been themost vulnerable group who were severely influ-enced by the policies of the Turkish state in theregion and thus who mostly were subjected toforced immigration to the other sides of thecountry, the other ethnic groups had to immi-grate as a consequence of restless situation orimplemented policies in the region. Anothersignificant point in this story is the younggeneration’s endeavor for redefining and recon-structing their Armenian identity in Istanbulwhere the emergence and the experience of dif-ferent ethnic identities are more tolerated thanit was in their hometown. For example, thoughthe members of new generation do not know

Armenian language, they think that their chil-dren should learn their language, culture andreligion in order to be ‘real’ Armenians. In otherwords, the reconstruction of their ‘authentic’identity seems to gain an enormous power as ameans of constituting a re-imagined communi-ty for their survival in the city.

Most of the Kurds in Elmada¤ get along betterwith these Armenians and also Iraqi people,than with the other residents. Not only beingfrom the East but also having similar experien-ces becomes the basic reasons for their proxim-ity. Being oppressed by the government andthen forced to immigrate in various ways arethe shared experiences uniting these communi-ties with each other.

When we asked if they were subject to anykind of discrimination in Elmada¤, they gave ussome examples of cultural discrimination, suchas being labeled ‘rustic/redneck’79. In fact, theKurds in Elmada¤ were mostly complainingabout the policies of the Turkish governmentrather than the manners of inhabitants living inthe neighborhood. For them, the Turkish state‘does not consider the Kurds as human beings.It does not treat them with respect’80.

On the other hand, some of the inhabitantsin Elmada¤, though they do not reveal theirfeelings directly to the Kurds, are not very gladto live side by side with them. It was interestingto see a man who had immigrated to Istanbulfrom Sivas in the late 1940s proposing that ‘theones who demolished the profile of Istanbulwere in fact the ones coming from Siirt, Urfa,Mardin, Diyarbak›r and Hakkari. When thesepeople rushed here, they spoiled the atmos-phere’81. The pioneer immigrants who ‘firstcome-first win’ in Istanbul think that they havethe right to claim more rights over this city thanthe latecomer immigrants. With the presence ofnew comers in Istanbul, the old immigrantshave reconstructed an identity for themselvesas the real owners of the city/neighborhood,which is equipped with the forces of domina-tion and superiority. Likewise, another intervie-wee offered that ‘Kurds, vagabonds and Gypsies

79 In Turkish slang it is ‘k›ro’ which is generally used to refer in a pejorative way to the immigrants coming fromEastern Turkey.

80 ‘Kürtleri insan yerine, adam yerine koymuyor. Sayg› göstermiyorlar’.81 ‘Bu ‹stanbul’un esas biçimini bozan Siirt, Urfa, Mardin, Diyarbak›r, Hakkari’den gelenler. Oralar›n insanlar›

buraya dolunca buran›n tad› kaçt›’.


37

have emigrated here from Anatolia. Culturedpeople were living here, who knew how to callout to a grocer or doorman. The life was so dif-ferent here!’82. The same man later on impliedthat the Kurds have many children because ofpolitical reasons. For him, having many chil-dren is a way to get into the government. On theother hand, he suggested that as long as theTurks think that ‘one child is too little and twochildren are too many’ the equilibrium betweenthe populations of Turkish and Kurdish peoplewould be unbalanced83. The perception of theincreasing Kurdish population seems to increasethe sensitivity to preserve the integrity of theTurkish identity and culture. In some cases thisidea can provoke intensified and extremistnationalist reactions, which fortunately havenot been experienced frequently in Elmada¤.

Tarlabafl› and Elmada¤ are the two neigh-borhoods in which high numbers of Kurdishimmigrants are living. It is possible to make adistinction between these two neighborhoodsin regard to the economic conditions of Kurdsdwelling there. The Kurds who immigrated toIstanbul and settled in Tarlabafl› are the poorestones living in very difficult conditions. Howe-ver, the Kurds dwelling in Elmada¤ have bettereconomic conditions since most of them camefrom their villages with a certain amount ofmoney. When the well-being of Kurds in Tarla-bafl› improved, they moved to Elmada¤: OneKurdish interviewee dwelling in Elmada¤remembered his stay in Tarlabafl› with badmemories: ‘My big brothers came to Tarlabafl› in1982. In those years, Gypsies were living there.Robbery was common. This was not a condu-cive environment for families. The neighborhood

was dirty and vagrants were dwelling there.However, we were obliged to live there becauseof our economic conditions’84. Likewise, withthe improvement in their economic conditions,the Kurds dwelling in the lower side ofElmada¤, move into the upper side of the neigh-borhood. An interviewee speculated that manypoliticized Kurds prefer to dwell in Elmada¤,instead of the neighborhoods known as Kurdishenclaves such as Gazi. By this way, the inter-viewee argued that the place of the politicizedKurds could not be easily pinned down inElmada¤, which is a more heterogeneously pop-ulated neighborhood.

In this next part of our study, we examinethe situation of international immigrants inTurkey with a special focus on the legal appli-cations of the Turkish government in the lastfive decades in order to gain a better under-standing of the experiences of internationalimmigrants in Elmada¤. Therefore, after high-lighting the limitations of Turkish laws con-cerning the international immigrants, we putforward our observations that have come out ofseveral in-depth interviews done with interna-tional immigrants living in Elmada¤ who actu-ally regard their stay in Turkey as ‘temporary’.

International Immigrants in Elmada¤

Turkey, which had been recognized as a ‘send-ing’ country in terms of international immigra-tion flows, is claimed to be a ‘receiving’ countrysince the early 1980s (IOM, 1995, 1). It is esti-mated that nearly 2,5 million foreign citizenshave entered Turkey in the last two decades(‹çduygu and Keyman, 2000, 390)85.

82 ‘Anadolu’dan Kürtler, serseriler, Çingeneler geldi. Buralar hep kültürlüydü. Bakkala, kap›c›ya seslenmesini bilir-lerdi. Bambaflkayd› hayat!’.

83 ‘Kürtler ... çok çocuk yaparlar, amaçlar› hükümete girmek. Bizim Türkler bir az, ikisi çok diyorlar, denge bozu-luyor’.

84 ‘Önce büyük abiler 1982 de geldi Tarlabafl›na. Eskiden orada Çingene olay› vard›, h›rs›zl›k vard›, ailenin otur-mas›na müsait bir ortam yoktu. Pisti, berdufllar vard›. Ama mecburduk oturmaya orada, maddi durumumuzyoktu’.

85 After the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, about one and half million Iranians transited to a third country aftera temporary stay in Turkey. In 1982, 4,000 refugees from Afghanistan living in camps in Pakistan were broughtto Turkey. Between 1988 and 1995, approximately 650,000 Iraqi Kurds poured into Turkey, who were consid-ered as ‘temporary guests’ rather than asylum seekers by the Turkish government. In 1989, more than 310,000Bulgarian Turks and Pomaks settled in Turkey. From 1992 to 1995, 30,000 Bosnians sought refuge in Turkey andin 1999 nearly 20,000 Albanians from Kosovo arrived in Turkey. Since the late 1980s, an estimated 30,000immigrants from African and Asian countries such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Afghanistan,the Philippines and Sri Lanka have entered into Turkey (‹çduygu and Keyman, 2000, 390).


The reasons for moving into Turkey are var-ied; while some immigrants are fleeing war,persecution or ethnic tensions in their homecountries, some others are immigrating for eco-nomic reasons and searching for a better educa-tion and future for their children. According toSema Erder, international immigrants whocome to Turkey can be categorized into threemain groups due to their reasons of immigra-tion (2000, 257). The first group is comprised ofpolitical refugees who seek asylum in a thirdcountry for reasons of armed conflict or war intheir home countries. In this group, the immi-grants move into Turkey in the form of massimmigration flows, such as in the case of IraqiKurds in 1991. Secondly, there are immigrantswho use Turkey as a transit zone on their wayto other Western countries. In comparison tothe first group, these people are illegal transitimmigrants who come to Turkey with smallgroups or family members with the intention ofmoving to a developed country with better eco-nomic opportunities, higher standards of living,and the chance for a better life. Unlike thesetwo categories, there are suitcase traders whoseek economic opportunities by coming to Tur-key. They do not want to establish themselvespermanently in Turkey but rather they lookforward to making enough money in order tolive at home comfortably and support their fam-ilies. The movements of the three differentimmigrant groups are neither continuous, norpermanent. These irregular movements targeting

temporary stay in the country indicate the factthat Turkey is a ‘waiting room’ rather than areal ‘receiving country’ (Erder, 2000, 257).

Of the millions of the international immi-grants coming to Turkey, only a small numberstayed in the country86. Immigrants are beingconfronted with special difficulties in Turkey,such as the lack of an unequivocal administra-tion of laws concerning immigrants, the exclu-sion from democratic participation, economicdestitution and violation of human rights. Inaddition to these, the restrictive immigrant andrefugee policies of Turkey play an importantrole behind immigrants’ decision to leaveTurkey. The Turkish government ratified the1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relatingthe status of refugees. However, it accepted theConvention with a ‘geographical limitation’; i.e.a restriction on its asylum commitment toapplicants from European countries87. In otherwords, legal obligations would be applied onlyto persons who would ask asylum as a result ofevents in Europe, and there would be no obliga-tion with regard to non-European refugees.

However, since the late 1970s, Turkey hasbecome one of the most commonly used transitroutes through which immigrants from Africaand Asia pass on their way to their preferreddestinations, such as European countries, UnitedStates, Canada and Australia. The mass influxesof people, especially from the Middle East,pushed Turkey to implement a new regulationon asylum seekers in November 199488.

86 Around 100,000 Iranians stayed in Turkey, while a large proportion resettled in a third country. Most of the Iraqisreturned back to their home; only 10,000 Iraqis settled in Turkey. Many Bosnians obtained refugee status fromthe Western countries and just 3,000 stayed in Turkey. More than 150,000 Bulgarians returned to Bulgaria.Nearly 1,000 Albanian refugees from Kosovo settled in Turkey (‹çduygu and Keyman, 2000, 390-391).

87 Until the adoption of the 1951 Convention on Refugees, Turkey did not have legislation in regard to asylum toforeigners. According to the Law on Settlement adopted in 1934 (Law 2510), only individuals of ‘Turkish descentand culture’ could obtain the refugee status. According to Article 4 of this law, ‘from the prospective settlers thosewho are not attached to Turkish culture, anarchists, spies, nomads and gypsies may not be accepted as refugees’.Kemal Kiriflçi argues that even after the adoption of the 1951 Convention, Turkey continued to grant full refugeestatus to foreigners who have met the provisions of Law 2510. For a detailed explanation, see Kemal Kiriflçi (2000).

88 It is entitled as ‘Regulation on the Procedures and the Principles Related to Mass Influx and the ForeignersArriving in Turkey or Requesting Residence Permits with the Intention of Seeking Asylum from a Third Country’.Implementation of this regulation meant that Turkey recognized its changing status to that of a transit countryand its need to go beyond the Geneva Convention to deal effectively with the non-European asylum seekers.Until the introduction of the 1994 Asylum regulation, Turkish national law had no provisions governing thestatus of asylum seekers and refugees coming from outside Europe. Yet, in the 1994 Regulation, the refugee def-inition of 1951 Geneva Convention is repeated by adding the phrase ‘As a result of events which have occurredin Europe’ at the beginning of the sentence. This means that it is still not the international obligation of Turkeyto confer the refugee status to people outside Europe and these people are defined as ‘asylum seekers’. The powerof determination of asylum status was given to the control of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) without actually lift-ing the geographical limitation (Kiriflçi, 2001, 11). Though the Regulation identifies MOI as the body responsiblefor status determination, MOI officials have come to rely increasingly on the judgment of the UNHCR.


39

Recently, in the context of its candidacy forEU membership, the Government of Turkeyissued in March 2001 a National Plan of Actionfor the Adoption of the European Union Acqui-sition (NPAAA). This document states thatTurkey aims to lift the geographical limitationon refugees, provided that EU countries shownecessary sensitivity in burden sharing and thissituation does not encourage a mass influx ofimmigrants.

As a consequence of the temporary nature ofthe asylum available to non-European refugees,their local integration in Turkey is not feasible.Almost all these refugees must be resettled ina third country. During their stay in Turkey,refugees are largely dependent on UNHCR’sassistance and services in terms of sustainingtheir needs of food, shelter, basic health care,schooling, as well as social and legal counsel-ing89.

The difficulty of processing asylum claimswithin a reasonably brief period, given the pro-cedural rules, has many impacts in Turkey,such as exacerbating economic and social prob-lems, particularly in Van and the other bordercities. The stay in the transit country takesa long period of time. This became evident inresearch performed among 159 migrants, includ-ing refugees, passing through Turkey. Many ofthe respondents ‘planned their move to Turkeyfor about one year, have been living in Turkeyfor almost two years, and are planning to leavefor the country of destination in other year’(IOM, 1995, 2).

Considering the many instances of deporta-tion and refoulement rumored amongst theasylum seekers coming to Turkey, it is not

surprising that many are afraid to attempt toregister an application with the authorities.Some of them manage to gain access to theasylum procedure. Upon registration, most ofthe non-European immigrants, mainly Iraniansand Iraqis, have been assigned by the Govern-ment to one of 25 provincial cities. The ones,who are denied registration either remain inTurkey illegally, attempt to go on to Europe orpursue alternate ways to seeking asylum orimmigrating to a third country. Currently it isestimated that there are approximately 1 millionforeigners who are working in Turkey illegally(Kiriflçi, 2001, 22). In the UNHCR 2001 GlobalAppeal, the UNHCR Turkey Office listed thenumber of non-European refugees and asylum-seekers of concern as 7,000.

Northern Iraqi people have the highest pop-ulation among the international immigrantgroups dwelling in Elmada¤. Though we do notknow the exact number of Iraqi immigrants inElmada¤, an officer working in Caritas organi-zation90 estimated that approximately 50 fami-lies are living in Elmada¤, which is considera-bly a high number.

We interviewed with four Iraqi families inElmada¤, who are all Catholic Chaldeans. Theyhave been living in Turkey minimum for oneyear and maximum for two and a half years.They explained their reasons of immigrationmostly by economic factors which have beendeteriorated because of warfare conditions intheir country. However, neither of them havean intention of staying permanently in Turkey.Having made their legal applications to theUNHCR office in Turkey, they are all waiting forthe results for their applications to immigrate to

89 UNHCR’s main office is in Ankara, with a presence in Istanbul, Silopi and Van. A total of nine international, nineJPOs and 60 national staff manage the country programme. Of the nine international staff, three are RegionalAdvisors (on gender, children and legal training) based in Ankara. The UNHCR Office in Turkey, which plays aleading operational role in the refugee status determination process, collaborates with seven NGOs (Associationfor Solidarity with Asylum-seekers and Migrants, Caritas, Human Resource Development Foundation,International Catholic Migration Commission, Inter-Parish Migration Programme, Migrants and AnatolianDevelopment Foundation and Turkish Red Crescent Society). UNHCR also collaborates with intergovernmentalorganizations including IOM (for resettlement and voluntary repatriation) and UNICEF (for refugee women andchildren).

90 Caritas Internationalis is a confederation of 154 Catholic relief, development and social service organizationspresent in 198 countries and territories. The first Caritas organization was founded in Germany in 1896, and allthe national Caritas organizations are united in a worldwide confederation, Caritas Internationalis, with its head-quarters in Rome. The Caritas organization in Turkey was established in the 1950s by Domenico Caloyeras OP,the administrator of the Greek Catholic community in Istanbul. In 1985, Pierre Dubois, the Latin Apostolic Vicarin Istanbul inaugurated the present office of Caritas in Elmada¤ (Booklet of Caritas Türkiye, 8).


a third country. The countries they want to settleare Australia, Canada and Switzerland wheretheir relatives already live. In this regard, theIraqi families we interviewed could be placedin the ‘transit immigrants’ category within theframework of Sema Erder’s groups distin-guished in regard to reasons of immigration.Yet, most of the people in this group claimedstrongly that they made their offical applica-tions in Turkey to seek an asylum in a thirdcountry lawfully. In brief, if our intervieweestold us the truth, their situation in Elmada¤could neither be explained with Erder’s firstgroup who decide to immigrate massively toTurkey with merely political reasons nor withthe second group who seek illegal ways to passthrough a third country. Accepting the fact thatthere might be many illegal Iraqi immigrants inElmada¤ though not admitted, we should alsoacknowledge the presence of some type of migra-tion that is ‘transit’ in its nature but neitherutterly illegal nor massive.

The Iraqi immigrants demonstrate a typicalchain migration process by following the paththat their relatives have gone through from Iraqto Istanbul and then lastly to a third country.The majority of the Iraqis are living in theTarlabafl›, Kurtulufl and Elmada¤ with regard totheir economic conditions. As the economicstate of the ones dwelling in Tarlabafl› improves,they prefer to move to Elmada¤ or Kurtulufl91.Their choice of these three neighborhoods doesnot seem coincidental. The presence of Caritasin Elmada¤ is the essential pulling force fortheir settlement in these neighborhoods, whichare closer to this organization.

Caritas provides assistance to Catholic Iraqiimmigrants spending a shorter or longer time oftransit stay in Istanbul. In many cases, Caritasserves as a link between the refugees andUNHCR and foreign embassies by following upon the cases of the refugees. During the year2000, Caritas organization in Turkey followedup on 745 Iraqi refugee cases92. In addition tolegal assistance, Caritas provides food, clothand medicine aid to the needy immigrants. It

also organizes basic schooling mainly Englishcourses, for refugee children nine to fourteenyears old, taught by teachers from the refugeegroup itself.

Caritas organization has a significant placein the daily lives of the Iraqi immigrants. As aCatholic organization, Caritas constitutes ameeting spot for many Iraqis along with theSaint-Esprit and Saint-Antoine Churches wherethey attend Sunday prays. In fact, religion com-prises a significant component in the daily livesof the Iraqi immigrants. They regularly attendceremonial activities, which are essential inbinding the members of their group. By thisway, a sense of group solidarity is affirmed andsocial cohesion in their groups is promoted.Iraqi immigrants constitute an isolated enclavewithin Elmada¤ whose members just have aninteraction with each other. As a result of theirisolation from the neighborhood but their strongconnection within their community, we cansuggest that the only strong neighborly relationsin Elmada¤ are established among the Iraqis.

As we mentioned above, some of the Iraqiswait for a very long time in Turkey to be accept-ed by a third country93. During this period, themembers of Iraqi families work illegally in theunskilled and uninsured jobs with very longworking hours but earning very little money.Among our interviewees, at least one of themembers of the family is working in jobs suchas baby-sitting, cleaning or dishwashing in arestaurant. They told us some stories about howthey are exploited and cheated by their employ-ees but can not claim any right before the lawssince they are working illegally.

The Iraqi women outnumber the Iraqi menin Elmada¤. In the apartments we were invited,we met many women living alone with theirchildren. Mostly it is the men whose applica-tions are first accepted and who are sent to athird county. Therefore, the women left behindin Turkey are waiting for the results of theirapplication, while living with their children,with a very limited amount of money. Some-times two or three families live together in the

91 In Elmada¤, they are mostly dwelling in the lower side of the neighborhood, such as Akkarga or Küçükbay›rStreets where the rents are lower in comparison to that of upper side.

92 Booklet of Caritas Türkiye, 29.93 According to the Caritas officer their period of staying in Turkey sometimes extends to 5 years.


41

same apartment in difficult conditions. Whenasked if they are assisted financially by theirrelatives in Iraq or by their husbands in anoth-er Western country, most of them answerednegatively. The indefiniteness of the period tobe spent in Turkey has enslaved them to a feel-ing of temporariness. However, with a very sub-jective observation, we can assert that theyhave learned to manage this feeling of a transi-tory state after several years of immigrationexperience. Their hopes for the future and theircomparatively better conditions in Istanbul thanin hometowns comprise the ways of copingwith the difficulties they are facing.

Along with the Iraqi people, immigrantsfrom different African countries are dwelling inElmada¤. Actually it is difficult to determinethe countries of the African immigrants sincemost of the people in Turkey totalize themunder the headings such as ‘Negro’, ‘African’ or‘Black’94. The fact that some of them are illegalimmigrants and therefore not registered by anyauthorities in Turkey is the reason for the lackof considerable data about their population andnationalities. Another reason put forward bythe headman of ‹nönü Neighborhood is theirconstant flow to other countries as soon as it ispossible: ‘African immigrants do not stay long[in the neighborhood]. They stay almost oneweek or ten days and then another groupcomes’95. In this regard, Sema Erder’s explana-tion of the category of ‘transit immigrant’ fitsvery well to this group who actually decide toimmigrate mainly for reasons of attainment ofhigher standards of life in a third country andto arrive at this country through illegal ways.

However, it is possible to assert that in com-parison to the population of the Iraqi immi-grants, the number of Africans dwelling inElmada¤ is considerably low. All the intervie-

wees are in consensus on the issue that todaythe number of Africans is lower than it was inthe past. Most of the interviewees suggestedthat three or four years ago there were moreAfricans especially in the lower side of Elmada¤,who left the neighborhood after the continuouspolice raids to deport the illegal immigrants96.Today many Africans live in Tarlabafl› andincreasingly in Kurtulufl neighborhoods.

The African immigrants in Elmada¤ usuallyrent full-furnished apartments with a pricevarying between 300-350 million Turkish Liras(200-250$). Many inhabitants of Elmada¤explicitly put forward their uneasiness aboutthe presence of African immigrants in theneighborhood and blame the landlords forrenting their apartments to them in order to earnmoney. Moreover, the inhabitants often criti-cize the living conditions of these immigrantsas expressed by one of the interviewees, ‘twentyof them living together in the same apartment’97.In order to share the rents of their apartments,the African immigrants generally live togetherin barely survivable conditions.

Unlike the Iraqi immigrants who have nei-ther encountered any kind of discrimination,nor been pleased about in the neighborhood,the Africans are frequently despised by theother inhabitants of Elmada¤. A high number ofinterviewees showed the presence of Africansin Elmada¤ as a factor decreasing the value ofElmada¤ without making any explanations.Having uncanny feelings toward the Africans,the inhabitants regard them as people threaten-ing their security and comfort in the neighbor-hood. As one of the interviewees put forward:‘they are frequently wandering here. We do notknow what they are doing. We do not knowif they are involved in illicit dealings, such asdrugs, hashish’98. While referring to Africans,

94 The African immigrants we interviewed in Elmada¤ are from Nigeria. They suggested that they are legal immi-grants who intend to settle in Canada and Italy.

95 ‘Onlar çok kalmaz. Bir hafta on gün kal›rlar, sonra di¤er posta gelir’.96 In July 2001, the police gathered up over 200 African immigrants from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Sudan

and Eritrea in Istanbul and sent them to the Greek border. According to the declaration of IHD (Human RightsAssociation), the immigrants also rejected by the Greek authorities had to stay in the impartial region withouthaving their basic necessities met. During this period, while three immigrants were drowned in the river, two ofthem claimed that they were raped. Unfortunately, other than IHD announcement and a few alternative newspa-pers, this event did not get reported in the mass media.

97 ‘Yirmi kifli ayn› evde kal›yorlar’98 ‘Buralarda çok dolafl›yorlar. Ne ifl yap›yorlar bilmiyoruz, pis ifllere mi bulafl›yorlar bilmiyoruz, hap, esrar falan’.


the interviewees often blame them as the drugsellers, swindlers or thieves, although theyhave not witnessed the commitment of thesecrimes by the African immigrants.

In brief, it seems that African immigrantsare one of the most ostracized people in thisneighborhood. Though the inhabitants have notencountered any dreadful behavior emanatingfrom them, their prejudice seems so strong thatit cannot be altered easily.

Chapter IV : The functional transformation of Elmada¤

In this chapter we attempt to make some pre-dictions about the future of Elmada¤, which hasbeen going through a functional transformationprocess under the influences of business incli-nations during the last decades. In order toshed light on the question whether Elmada¤ isgoing to appear as a business location in thefuture, we first analyze the historical change inHarbiye neighborhood and then the functionaltransformation of Cumhuriyet Street as well asthe streets of Elmada¤ in terms of their special-ization on different occupations.

Our second concern in this chapter is aboutthe present and prospective residents of Elma-da¤: ‘Who are going to stay or leave the neigh-borhood and why’ are the two questions thatcan give us some clues about the future socio-economic structure of the neighborhood. As wewill discuss in the following pages, Elmada¤ isgaining more and more a ‘transit’ characterregarding the fact that many old Muslim andnon-Muslim families are ready to leave theneighborhood as soon as they provide the eco-nomic means, whereas immigrants, students,bobos99 and wage earner singles are moving inthe neighborhood yet mostly for a ‘temporarystay’. One of our concerns in this chapter is toexplain the reasons and consequences of thisconstant ‘moving in-moving out’ circulation, orin other words, of the flux within the neighbor-hood.

HarbiyeIn the period between 1839-1923, the historicalpeninsula (Kapal›çarfl›, Mahmut Pafla, M›s›r Çar-fl›s›, Tahtakale) and Galata-Pera-Beyo¤lu districtwere two basic shopping centers in Istanbul.While the traditional shops were mainly locat-ed in the historical peninsula, business firms,large stores and banks were all opened in Galata-Pera district where a modern style of specializa-tion was developed (Berkmen Yakar, 2000, 119).On the other hand, during this period Beyo¤luwas symbolizing a Western style of culture,shopping and entertainment. However, Galata-Pera-Beyo¤lu district of Istanbul declineddramatically following the exodus of its non-Muslim population to foreign countries espe-cially after the events of Wealth Tax (1942), 6th-7th September Events (1955) and Cyprus Con-flict (1963-64). The departure of non-Muslimcommunity from Galata-Pera-Beyo¤lu resultedin radical transformations in the texture ofthese neighborhoods.

With the acceleration of internal immigra-tion in the 1950s, there was a radical increasein the urban population, which resulted in agreat demand for housing. The emergence ofshantytowns in the periphery of Istanbul builtby the immigrants as well as luxurious apart-ments constructed by the new commercialbourgeoisie in the city were the two oppositedevelopments experienced during the Demo-crat Party era which signified the beginning ofliberal economy and populist policies in thecountry. Under the leadership of AdnanMenderes, new roads were constructed oralready existing ones were expanded by demol-ishing old houses. This road construction activ-ity of the Menderes era was in parallel withrapidly increasing number of motor vehicles inIstanbul. However, these new constructionactivities lacking any concern of urban plan-ning damaged the natural texture of the city.

During 1950s the number of Central Busi-ness Districts in Istanbul increased and theyare extended towards fiiflli100 in parallel to thespread of high-income residential and businessareas. Consequently, new Central Business

99 We use bobo as an abbreviation for ‘bohemian bourgeoisie’ as mainly used by scholars in the field of urban studies. 100 As the city expanded demographically and spatially, there occurred a need for municipal rearrangements in

terms of creating new districts and municipalities. Indeed, fiiflli which had been a subdistrict of Beyo¤lu wasturned into a district in 1954.


43

Districts such as Harbiye, Osmanbey and Meci-diyeköy developed along with the old ones(Tümertekin, 1997, 197-99). Harbiye appearedas a popular residential area for upper andupper-middle classes especially with the con-struction of huge Western style buildings onthe Cumhuriyet Street starting with the late1940s101. As a neighborhood, Harbiye has alwaysbeen the location carrying the ideologicalreflections of different governments in itstexture, which can be exemplified in forms ofdistinct architectural designs of different eras.Examples of both ‘national’ and ‘international’styles of architecture, which were the productsof two successive governments pursuing differ-ent policies, can still be observed in Harbiyetoday. The ‘national style’ in 1940s was ground-ed on the doctrines of rationalism and function-alism and it represented the modernist aesthetics,

which was most conspicuous in public build-ings mostly awarded in the national architec-ture contests. Some of the examples of this stylelocated in the vicinity are Istanbul Open AirTheatre [Istanbul Aç›khava Tiyatrosu] (1947)102,Sports and Exhibition Center [Spor ve SergiSaray›] (1949)103 and Istanbul Radio Station[Istanbul Radyoevi] (1949).

On the other hand, the ‘international style’in architecture ‘with its concrete slabs andglazed skin surfaces’ started to be designed dur-ing the Democrat Party period by prominentTurkish architects. ‘[E]ven an architect likeSedad Hakk› Eldem who advocated a state-sponsored ‘national’ style in 1930s and 1940slater became a local collaborating architectfor Hilton Hotel in Istanbul, a hallmark of‘international style’104 (Bozdo¤an, 1997, 141).The construction of Istanbul Hilton can be seenas one of the first signs of Americanization inTurkey. It not only exemplified an Americanconcept of hotel but also signified the introduc-tion of American policy in the country105

(Wharton, 1999, 296).

The construction of Hilton in Istanbul in 1955and then Divan Hotel in 1956 redefined thefunctional status of the neighborhood and con-tributed to the shift of new corporate and bankingcenter to the north. Real estate prices soared;tourism agencies and airline offices were allclustered around these hotels; and branches ofseveral banks were opened during those years.In brief, during 1950-60s Harbiye was a symbolof modern life with its newly constructed

Photo 20 Tourism agencies on the Cumhuriyet Street.

101 These apartments were constructed in the place of the Armenian and Latin cemeteries, which had been movedto other locations in Istanbul (interview with Aron Angel who was the assistant of Prost in the 1940s and thenthe head of the Planning Office (Naz›m Bürosu) until 1952.

102 While H. Prost was studying on the public plan of Istanbul in 1930s, he designed Gümüflsuyu-Taksim-Harbiye-Niflantafl›-Maçka-Dolmabahçe area -called Kad›rgalar Valley- as a cultural park on which Open Air Theatre,Sports and Exhibition Center were planned to be constructed. Therefore, this land named ‘No:2 Park’ wasexpropriated by the government. At that time, Küçükçiftlik and Belvü gazinos were on this area.

103 The name of Istanbul Sports and Exhibition Center was changed into Lütfi K›rdar Sports and Exhibiton Center[Lütfi K›rdar Sport ve Sergi Saray›] in 1988.

104 Hilton was designed by the well-known American architects Skidmore, Owings and Merill and Sedat Hakk›Eldem was the local collaborating architect and adviser. The construction of the hotel was sponsored by TurkishRepublic Pension Fund [Emekli Sand›¤›] and Marshall Plan Fund.

105 At the gala opening of the hotel, Conrad Hilton names the ideological significance of the hotel’s location as such:‘The Istanbul Hilton stands thirty miles from the Iron curtain... Here, with the Iron Curtain veritably before oureyes, we found a people who had fought the Russians for the past three hundred years and were entirelyunafraid of them... Standing before the assembled guests at the opening ceremonies, I felt this ‘City of GoldenHorn’ was a tremendous place to plant a little bit America. ‘Each of our hotels,’ I said, ‘is a ‘little America,’ notas a symbol of bristling power, but as a friendly center where men of many nations and of good will may speakthe language of peace’ (Wharton, 1999, 296).


Western type of apartments, cinemas, theatres,restaurants, nightclubs, hotels and publicbuildings.

The opening of the Bo¤aziçi Bridge in 1973caused the Central Business Districts to movetowards the north of the city. While the generaldirectorates of big firms, large commercialbuildings and international hotels started tomove from Taksim, Harbiye and Osmanbeyto Mecidiyeköy, offices of bars, doctors andlawyers shifted from Sirkeci, Ca¤alo¤lu, Nuru-osmaniye to Taksim, Osmanbey, Niflantafl›(Osmay, 1999, 144). In the end of 1970s, sever-al Central Business Districts emerged in Istan-bul specializing on different service sectors butbeing interdependent to each other. Tümerte-kin talks about nine Central Business Districtsin Istanbul, namely Aksaray, Eminönü, Kara-köy, ‹stiklal Street, Osmanbey, Mecidiyeköy,Befliktafl, Üsküdar, Kad›köy (1997, 187).

During the late 1980s a new business centeremerged on the axis of Büyükdere Street. Generaldirectorates of holdings and banks (Sabanc›Center, ‹flbank Plaza, Medya Plaza, Yap› KrediPlaza) and entertainment and shopping malls(Akmerkez) all moved towards BüyükdereStreet axis for the aim of meeting their needs ofa larger space, a better infrastructure and trans-portation. Consequently, Harbiye lost its valua-ble position relatively as a business center afterthe movement of general directorates of severalholdings and banks to Büyükdere Street axis.However, this transformation does not meanthat Harbiye has been turning out to be a pureresidential area or a decaying business centersince it is still an active business area in termsof accommodating the tourism, banking andentertainment sectors in Istanbul.

Cumhuriyet StreetOne of the most important streets on the Harbi-ye-Osmanbey axis is the Cumhuriyet Street ofwhich residential and functional transforma-tion has directly influenced the structure ofElmada¤. As we mentioned above, tourism,

banking and entertainment sectors in Istanbulare mostly located on the Cumhuriyet Street inHarbiye. The tourism offices, which were firstopened during the mid-1950s with the con-struction of hotels, significantly transformedthe functional and social structure of the neigh-borhood106. The presence of tourism offices ledto the opening of other professional domainsrelated to tourism sector such as airline officesand transporters.

Another significant sector characterizing thestreet is banking. The branches of several bankson the street have been opened and closed con-tinuously in accordance to the economic insta-bilities of the country. It is important to notethat after the recent economic crises many ofthe properties on the street were vacated andleft idle because of the high real estate pricesand economic difficulties that business firmshave been passing through.

On the Cumhuriyet Street, which has beenan entertainment location for years, there aremany restaurants, nightclubs, cafes and bars.The first examples of nightclubs, bars and discosin Istanbul, such as Panoroma, Kervansaray,Hydromel, Regie were all opened on this street.Besides the expensive restaurants, cafes andbars taking part within the hotels, new luxuri-ous ones are being opened with the impact ofthe renovation of Cumhuriyet Street107.

Photo 21 The land of the old fian Theatre, which is today used as an open-air car park.

106 There are approximately 150 tourism agencies operating on Elmada¤-Harbiye axis (http://www.nevarneyok.com.tr/danisma/turizm/sey1.asp)

107 The renovation of Cumhuriyet Street was initiated by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in 2001. The con-struction of boulevards with large walkways aiming to change the profile of the city paved the way for openingmany cafes, restaurants and pastry shops on the street (such as Hai Sushi, Pronto Café and recently Mado).


45

However, an opposite inclination is also beingexperienced by the owners of some old enter-prises on the street. For example, one of ourinterviewees, owner of a disco on CumhuriyetStreet since the 1960s, suggested that the pro-file of his customers has radically changed inparallel to the declining popularity of the Cum-huriyet Street. He claimed that he had openedone of the first discos in Istanbul which wasfollowed up by many others but the quality ofthese places as well as of customers havedeclined as time passes. While his first custom-ers were among the elites of Istanbul, now‘shady people’ are coming to his place. Withthe decrease in the number of his customers inconsequence of economic difficulties lived inthe country, he decided to shut down his discoin the short run.

The business firms located on the Cumhuri-yet Street have led to the emergence and devel-opment of small-scale occupations in Elmada¤.For example, many restaurants, hairdressersand parking lots in the streets of Elmada¤ arejust opened to serve for the people working atbanks, travel agencies and business firms onthe Cumhuriyet Street. Although several parkinglots are being operated in the streets of Elma-da¤, they are not sufficient enough to meet thedemands of people. The fact that every suitablearea in the neighborhood is constantly beingconverted into a parking place demonstratesthat running parking lots seems to be one of themost profitable occupations in Elmada¤.

Our observation that the hairdressers inElmada¤ are very crowded in the early morn-ings with working women as well as the restau-

rants located in this neighborhood are just openduring working hours of the week and verycrowded during lunch breaks indicates the factthat many workplaces in Elmada¤ are opened toserve the people working around. One of ourinterviewees, owner of a restaurant, assertedthat their restaurant earns money just duringthe lunch breaks. The restaurant owner has noconnection with the local people of Elmada¤suggesting that their customers are merelyamong working people in the CumhuriyetStreet and their restaurant is closed on Satur-days and Sundays. The only person he knowsfrom Elmada¤ is his landlord with whom he hasa commercial relationship.

In brief, the only significant connectionbetween Cumhuriyet Street and Elmada¤ seemsto be a commercial one: Many people runningbusiness in Elmada¤ serve for the people work-ing on the Cumhuriyet Street. What is alsostriking in the neighborhood is the sharp dis-tinction between the two locations, CumhuriyetStreet and the streets of Elmada¤, which sym-bolize two different worlds. While the Cumhuri-yet Street with its Western style apartments and

Photo 22 and 23 Parking lots in the basement of apartment buildings in the inner streets of Elmada¤.


public buildings carries the reflections of differ-ent periods, the latter with its old and smallhouses constitutes a home of migrants. Thepassage from Cumhuriyet Street to one of thestreets of Elmada¤ not only denotes differenthistorical processes of the country but alsomarks a radical change in the lifestyles of thepeople who barely come together.

The streets of Elmada¤Since the early 1980s, many business firmshave opened their offices in the streets of Elma-da¤, on the parts of Ölçek, Babil, Üftade, Turna,Cebeli Topu Streets closer to Cumhuriyet Street.Relatively low prices of real estates attractedthe business firms. However, with the economiccrises in 2000 November and 2001 February,the economic situations of business firms onCumhuriyet Street as well as the shop keepersin Elmada¤ have sharply deteriorated. In Elma-da¤ the real estate prices vary in regard to thelocations of streets: the values of real estatesdecline, as they get closer to Dolapdere or faraway from the Cumhuriyet Street. Therefore,the shops and apartments on Babil, Ölçek andÜftade Streets are more valuable than those onAkkarga and Küçükbay›r Streets.

Babil Street, as the heart of the neighbor-hood, has been the most popular and vividstreet in Elmada¤. Groceries, butchers, shoe-makers, electricians, pastry-shops, real estateagents, hairdressers, hardware stores, buffets,restaurants are all located on this street. Most ofthe shopkeepers usually close their shops at alate time. This street signifies not only one ofthe most valuable streets in Elmada¤ in terms oftrading but also a public space where most ofthe men working on this street socialize witheach other. During the day, it is possible towitness the groups of men clustering at everycorner of the Babil Street. Although in summernights, women go out and chat in front of theirhouses, this street is mainly dominated by men.

Families generally live in the HarbiyeÇay›r› and Çimen Streets, which lie downparallel to Cumhuriyet and Dolapdere Streets.The fact that there are only a few shops (such asgroceries) on Çimen Street indicates that thespreading of business offices into the streetsof Elmada¤ stops before it arrives to ÇimenStreet108. However, it is pertinent to note thaton this street there are some houses that arebeing used for storing. These houses are rentedto business firms as depots concerning the rela-tively low rents and central position of Elmada¤in Istanbul.

Map II: Istanbul fiehir Rehberi, Istanbul BüyükflehirBelediyesi Yay›nlar›,1989. (scale 1/10000)

108 There is only one business firm functioning in a three-floor building on this street that was constructed last year(2001) in the place of an old house.


47

There are several nightclubs [pavyons] andbars on the Nispet Street which are generallydisapproved by the inhabitants of the neighbor-hood. One of our interviewees having a shopjust across a nightclub in Elmada¤ but living inYedikule asserted that ‘I do not want to livehere. There are bars, nightclubs [pavyons] here.This is not a good place to bring up childrenor for families’109. According to a policemanworking at Harbiye police station, the numberof the bars and pavyons in Elmada¤ declinedrecently due to economic difficulties. Therewas a famous brothel (Varol Brothel) near theintersection point of Nispet and Ölçek Streets,which was closed in the 1980s by SaadettinTantan when he was the Head of IstanbulSecurity Department. One of the intervieweesclaimed that two other brothels located on Nis-pet and Cumhuriyet Streets were also closedalong with the Varol brothel and then the pros-titutes started to work privately in Elmada¤. Onthe other hand, the driving out of transvestitesfrom Ülker and Pürtelafl Streets in Cihangirresulted in the settlement of some of them inElmada¤.

Cumhuriyet Street is one of the most popu-lar locations in Istanbul for transvestites. While

some of the transvestites find their customersjust by waiting on the corners of the streets, thewealthier ones choose to drive on the street.Some of these transvestites live in Elmada¤concerning the facts that their ‘work place’ isnearby and the rents are relatively low in thisneighborhood. As we learned from their neigh-bors, transvestites in Elmada¤ generally do notwork at their homes. Therefore, while some ofthe inhabitants are indulgent to them, manyothers want them leave the neighborhood.

Both Elmada¤ and Yeni Nalbant Streets canbe characterized with the automobile repair-ers110. Especially after 1945, the sharp increasein the population of Istanbul resulted in the riseof the number of automobiles along with that ofautomobile repairing stores. Elmada¤ and YeniNalbant Streets were one of the first locationsin Istanbul specialized on automobile repair-ing111. However, with the law issued in 1982which encouraged the automobile repairers inthe inner city to set up their business in theperiphery of Istanbul, many automobile repair-ers in Elmada¤ moved their stores to the placesshown by the government. One of the automo-bile spare part sellers argued that there is nofuture of automobile repairing in Elmada¤ andinformed us that about 15 stores were closed onElmada¤ Street after the recent economic crises.Moreover, car owners’ preference of big auto-mobile services is another obstacle for the via-bility of small-scale automobile repairing storeswhich seem to disappear in the long run inElmada¤.

Another characteristic of Elmada¤ is the pres-ence of pickups selling vegetables in the streetsof Elmada¤. This way of selling goods which isvery typical of small places still continues inElmada¤ because of the fact that there are veryfew fruit and vegetable stores and supermarketsin the neighborhood. Although there is a foodmarketplace in Dolapdere on Sundays, people

Photo 24 Automobile repairers on the Elmada¤ Street.

109 ‘Ben burada oturmam, barlar, pavyonlar var. Aile için, çocuk yetifltirmek için iyi de¤il’.110 As we mentioned in the previous chapter, drivers and transporters are very common in Elmada¤ concerning the

fact that the people who had come to this neighborhood with the first internal immigration flow of the 1950s,had no choice but work as drivers since this job does not necessitate any social capital. We learned from anArmenian automobile repairer that all the old automobile repairers in Elmada¤ were generally non-Muslims.Indeed, during our study we realized that non-Muslims are mostly craftsmen such as carpenters, shoemakers andrepairers. Our interviewee added that non-Muslims later on trained Muslim immigrants as their apprentices.

111 We think that there was a spatial division of labor in the automobile sector in Istanbul. While Elmada¤ was theplace for automobile repairing, Talimhane was accommodating most of the automobile spare part selling stores.On the other hand, unlike Talimhane, in Sirkeci spare parts were being sold only for big vehicles.


in Elmada¤ do not usually shop there indicatingthat Dolapdere is a long way to go and ‘thereare Gypsies living in Dolapdere’. A non-verbaltension is apparent between the vegetable sell-ers with pickups and groceries selling basicvegetables in their shops. One of our intervie-wees, owner of a grocery, suggested that thevegetable sellers do not pay taxes to the govern-ment and hence they have the opportunity tosell their foods at a lower price. At the sametime, he complained about the supermarketopened on the Cumhuriyet Street a few monthsago claiming that his grocery cannot competewith the prices of this market which is beingoperated by a big holding.

Akkarga and Küçükbay›r Streets locatingin the lower side of Elmada¤ are the least valu-able places in terms of real estates. Gypsies,Kurds and international immigrants dwellinghere are economically and culturally marginal-ized people in the eyes of the other inhabitants.People living in the upper side of Elmada¤frequently emphasize their difference from theones living here such as naming them as dwell-ers of Dolapdere -rather than Elmada¤- andexpress their discontent of sharing the sameneighborhood with them. On the other hand,the ones living in the lower side even next tothe Dolapdere Street consider themselves as thedwellers of Elmada¤.

Some inhabitants consider the Çimen Streetas the symbolic boundary splitting the neigh-borhood into two parts concerning the economicconditions and cultural patterns of people liv-ing in the upper and lower sides of this street112.The poor ‘new comers’ from Dolapdere andTarlabafl› are assumed to live in the lower streetsof Elmada¤, whereas the ‘old inhabitants’ ofElmada¤ are presupposed to dwell in the upperside. However, the ‘old inhabitant’ and ‘newcomer’ categories can only relatively be definedin a neighborhood like Elmada¤, which hasbeen subject to incessant immigration flows foryears. Every one who immigrates here beforethe others considers her/himself as the oldinhabitant. However, the Gypsies who havebeen living in the lower side of Elmada¤ foryears are still not considered as the members ofthis neighborhood113. Therefore, the categoriesof ‘new and old inhabitants’ are distinguishedaccording to the cultural and economic charac-teristics of inhabitants rather than their chron-ological settlements in the neighborhood. Forexample, the Gypsies, having no access to anyupward mobility in both cultural and econom-ic terms would always remain as the permanent‘new comers’ in the eyes of some other inhabit-ants. Their presence in Elmada¤ would alwaysbe a trouble for the reasons of decreasing therents of real estates, their ‘life quality’ and thecondition of safety in the neighborhood. Yet,as we explained in the previous chapter, theirpresence in the neighborhood enables someothers to construct the nostalgia of ‘Elmada¤ inits good days’ and a feeling of ‘we, as the oldand real inhabitants of Elmada¤’.

Today Elmada¤ seems to show both residen-tial and business inclinations simultaneously.Although many shops and offices have beenopened in the upper side of Elmada¤ since the1980s, we cannot conclude that they wouldspread the lower side of Elmada¤ and convertthe neighborhood an entire business location,as one of the interviewees asserted: ‘On theupper side the business offices and shops candisperse but I do not think that the lower side

Photo 25 Dolapdere Street located on the eastern border of Elmada¤.

112 Interestingly, when interviewees were asked to define the boundaries of Elmada¤, most of them distinguishedthe Çimen Street as the lower limit of this neighborhood.

113 As we mentioned in the methodology chapter we were unable to conduct interviews with the Gypsies living inthe lower side of Elmada¤. All our explanations about Gypsies are based on our observations as well as on otherinhabitants’ perception of them.


49

towards Dolapdere will change a lot’114. Theradical change might happen if the PIYA pro-ject on Dolapdere can be realized but it does notseem to be launched in the near future115.

The economic crises recently experiencedin the country have enormous impacts onElmada¤ ending up with the shutting down ofmany shops and offices. Yet, while many ofthem are being closed, many enterprises arebeing put into service. On the other hand, ashopkeeper suggested that the newly openedshops in Elmada¤ and on Cumhuriyet Streetwould economically fail in the short run and hesupported his argument with the shutting downof a famous and historical buffet on the Cumhu-riyet Street recently. According to him, in oneyear about 1,500 working people left Elmada¤,either because their business were shut downor they were fired from their jobs.

Furthermore, the presence of old-smallhouses of the neighborhood is an obstacle forthe construction of buildings for businessfirms. The headman of ‹nönü neighborhoodasserted that ‘Elmada¤ is not and in fact cannotbe very popular. Because the contractors mustbuy five houses in order to construct one sincethe areas of houses are about 40-60 squaremeters’116. The fact that only a reasonable num-ber of apartments can be employed as officesespecially in the upper side of Elmada¤ illus-trates that many apartments would be left forresidential purposes. Consequently this pro-vides evidence for the future of Elmada¤ as aneighborhood that cannot be converted intoan entire business location. On the other hand,the gentrification of the neighborhood seem notpossible from now on, since the original archi-tectural tissue of the old houses have alreadybeen demolished by the activities of small con-tractors since the 1970s. Therefore, althoughElmada¤ has an appealing character for severalupper-middle class people having cultural cap-ital, it would not be popularized like Cihangir

given the fact that today the scene of Elmada¤is more of a patchwork pattern, where the oldthree-story buildings coexist side by side withthe new five-story unpleasant apartments.

What is more interesting about Elmada¤ isits peculiar transformation from an ordinaryresidential area to a ‘transit’ location in thecenter of the city. Therefore, focusing merelyon the questions of residential and businessinclinations in the neighborhood is not ade-quate to comprehend the interesting transitionthat is just peculiar to this neighborhood. In thenext part of this chapter we discuss the profileof current residents in Elmada¤ with a focus onthe questions of ‘who are going to stay or leavethis neighborhood and why’ to shed light on thereasons and consequences of population circu-lation within Elmada¤ which would make thisneighborhood simply a ‘transit’ area.

Bobos, students and wage earner singles:Elmada¤ as a ‘transit’ location

The central location of Elmada¤, its closeness toTaksim-Beyo¤lu, is the most important reasonbehind some of the inhabitants’ motive to livein this neighborhood. Nearly all of the bobos(bohemian bourgeoisie), students and wageearner singles dwelling in this neighborhoodasserted that they chose to settle in Elmada¤because of its closeness to other central loca-tions.

All the bobos we interviewed live in Arif PaflaManor, which seems to be an isolated enclavewithin the neighborhood. Having no connec-tion with the other inhabitants of Elmada¤, theresidents of this historical building know verylittle about the neighborhood. One of our inter-viewees claimed that he came here to live spe-cifically in Arif Pafla Manor. He also assertedthat he attaches so much importance to hisprivate life and thus does not like any ‘unex-pectedly visiting neighbors to his flat’117 thatcould disturb his comfort.

114 ‘Üst k›s›mlarda iflyerleri yay›labilir ancak alt k›s›mlar›n Dolapdere’ye do¤ru de¤iflece¤ini çok sanm›yorum’.115 PIYA project was designed during the mayorship of Bedrettin Dalan in the mid-1980s with an intention of trans-

forming Piyalepafla and Dolapdere boulevards into high-rise building areas. However, the project was not initi-ated yet, although construction permits in the neighborhood had been halted for several years.

116 ‘Elmada¤ flu anda popüler durumda de¤il. Olmas› da mümkün degil. Arsalar›n ço¤u 40-60 metrekare. Ancakbeflini müteahhit alacak ki birfley yapabilsin’.

117 ‘Komfluluk, çatkap› gelen istemiyorum’.


On the other hand, both low and high-incomewage earner singles living in Elmada¤ settled inthis neighborhood because of its location andthey, like bobos have no close relation withthe other inhabitants in Elmada¤. While one ofthem described his situation just as the ‘specta-tor of neighborhood’118 since his working pre-vents him to be involved in the neighborhoodrelations, another wage earner explained hisexperience as having no close relation with theneighborhood since he is always ‘either at homeor out of this neighborhood’119.

Along with Elmada¤’s central location, thereasonable rents and, for some of interviewees,the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of theneighborhood are the other incentives behind

their preference to live in Elmada¤, as one inter-viewee argued: ‘The rents are reasonable. Thepeople living here is not interested in others’lives very much. Here in each person’s life thereis a lot of nonsense, therefore, nobody wants toinvolve in others’ lives’.120

Another interesting point specific to Elma-da¤ is the presence of pensions especially serv-ing for single workingmen. One pension locatedon Ölçek Street was closed but two others arestill operating on Turna and Çimen Streets. Theowner of the pension on Çimen Street claimedthat they opened their pension in 1994 sincenobody was renting their apartments to singlemen in Elmada¤ in those years. Not only theTurkish men but also the foreign employees

Photo 26 and 27 Arif Pafla Manor.

118 ‘Çal›flt›¤›m›z için mahallenin içine giremiyoruz. Biz seyirci k›sm›nday›z’.119 ‘Ya hep evdeyim, ya da buran›n tamamen d›fl›nda’.120 ‘Kiralar burada makul. ‹nsanlar birbirine fazla kar›flm›yor. Herkesin kendi hayat›n›n içinde abukluk var, o

yüzden kimse kimseye kar›flm›yor’.


51

and tourists (especially Japanese, Italian andEnglish) stay in their pension from 6 months upto 4 years. They charge varied rents to foreign-ers and Turkish citizens, in a range of $150 to$300, including all the facilities. One of theresidents of this pension earning good moneybut preferring to stay in this pension explainshis situation as such: ‘Since I did not want to bebothered with the furniture problem and apart-ment details, I preferred to live in this pen-sion’121. While he was telling us his futureplans, it became apparent that he considers hisstay in this pension and in Elmada¤ as a ‘tempo-rary stay’.

Elmada¤ is also preferred by university stu-dents, thanks to its physical proximity to someuniversity campuses, such as ‹TÜ-Taflk›flla, ‹TÜ-Makine, ‹TÜ-Maden, Marmara Univ.-Diflçilik.In spite of the fact that all of these groups arepleased to live in this neighborhood, they donot intend to live here in the future. For exam-ple, two university students claimed that theyown the apartment they are living now but ifthey get marry, they are not going to live here.Another one explained his concern explicitly:‘If I get married, my wife will not want to stayhere since the houses are ruined and the neigh-borhood is very old [...] Also if I have a child, Ido not want to stay here again. There is noplace to play for the children’122. All these indi-cate that they regard Elmada¤ a ‘stopover’ intheir lives and consider their settlement here‘temporary’. In brief, they are the ‘transit inhab-itants’ of Elmada¤. Yet, what about the otherinhabitants of Elmada¤? Do they also considertheir stay in Elmada¤ temporary or they esti-mate a life long stay here? Who wants to leave/stay and why?

Leave or stay and why? The futureinhabitants of Elmada¤

As it is salient in our project now, we cannot talkabout a homogenous inhabitant population inElmada¤. The motives for leaving or staying in

this neighborhood change in accordance topolitical, cultural, economic and historicalfactors which have influenced different groupsof residents in various ways.

For the non-Muslim inhabitants of Elmada¤,we can absolutely talk about a decrease in theirnumber in the long-run. Many of them leftthe country because of the historical events,such as Wealth Tax in 1942, 6-7 Events in 1955and Cyprus Conflict in 1964. The non-Muslimsdwelling in Elmada¤ today are mostly lowincome families having no economic meanseither to move to other neighborhoods (mostly,Kurtulufl, Pangalt›, or Yeflilköy) or flee to a for-eign country (mostly Canada and France). Yet,many non-Muslim families’ children still immi-grate to foreign countries in search for a bettereducation, job or life standard as soon as theyhave the opportunity.

Many non-Muslims, like many other oldinhabitants in Elmada¤, complain about thedéclassé status of the neighborhood, whichthey explain by means of a decline from a mid-dle class to lower-middle class neighborhoodand a cultural collapse as a result of never-end-ing immigrations to Elmada¤. An Armenianwoman who left Elmada¤ 30 years ago and iscurrently living in the United States stated that‘there is no respect in the neighborhood now[...] The civilized people had disappeared andthe ignorant people came instead’123 and shecontinued to her words, ‘in the past, the neigh-borhood was a pleasant place. Non-Muslimswere living here. They were speaking the samelanguage with you. The atmosphere was warmand sincere. The income of people was high’.124

Implying the Kurds living in a house just at thecorner, she asserted that ‘they have convertedthis neighborhood to a village’125. Similarly aMuslim ex-inhabitant of Elmada¤ expressed hisfeelings as such: ‘Armenians were living here.We had very good neighborly relations withthem. Our relations were polite, enjoyable andpleasant. After the immigration of Kurds here,

121 ‘Eflya sorunu ve ev teferruat›yla u¤raflmamak için pansiyonu tercih ettim’.122 ‘Evlenirsem kar›m istemez buray›, evler harap, semt eski bir yer oldu¤u için [...] Çocu¤um olursa, burada otur-

may› istemem. En az›ndan çocuklar›n oynayaca¤› yer yok’.123 ‘fiimdi sayg›s›zl›k çok[...] Medeni insanlar yok olmufl, yobazlar gelmifl’.124 ‘O zamanlar çok nezihti. Gayri-müslimler vard›. Senin dilini konuflan insanlar vard›. Daha s›cak, samimi bir

atmosfer vard›. Belli gelir düzeyi vard›. Eskiden varl›kl›lar vard›’.125 ‘Tam köye çevirmifller buray›’.


nobody wanted to walk in the streets with thefear of robbery.... When many people flowedinto here from Anatolia, they [Armenians] ranaway from here’126. Another woman whosehusband is a lawyer explained her desire to sellher apartment in Elmada¤ since ‘people from allnationalities have come to Istanbul’127.

One of the interviewees explained that theGypsies who had been living in the peripheryof Elmada¤ settled in the lower streets of neigh-borhood after 1980s128. The interviewee mak-ing fun of the Gypsies continued his words assuch: ‘After being ‘civilized’, they settled in thelower streets of Elmada¤ as Mr. Ahmet, Mrs.Ayfle’129. On the other hand, the internationalimmigrants, especially the ones from Africa, areoften regarded as swindlers and conceived toproduce an insecure atmosphere in the neigh-borhood. However, the policeman working atthe Harbiye police station informed us that thecrimes committed in Elmada¤ are generallyordinary ones whose rates are not higher thanusual and even lower than the ones in Tarlabafl›and Kurtulufl.

Considering the Kurds, Gypsies and Africansas the main responsible people of the relativedegradation of Elmada¤ is a common complaintamong not only non-Muslim but also Muslimpopulation of the neighborhood. They are alwaysand continuously conceived as a threat to thesecurity and integrity of those who share a com-mon home. ‘We the people’ is defined againstthem who have different origins. The strugglefor unity and coherence results in the prejudiceagainst those who are defined as different.

Along with the insecurity concerns raisedwith the presence of the other ethnic groups,many inhabitants also mentioned that they

would like to leave since the neighborly rela-tions in Elmada¤ is very weak. One womanasserted that she would like to move to Okmey-dan› where her relatives are living all together.She suggested that there are no neighborly rela-tions in Elmada¤ where she has been dwellingfor two years. Moreover, an Armenian womanargued that ‘there was neighborly relations inthe past. Our neighbors left Elmada¤ and theirhouse was destroyed. In place of it, a buildingbelonging to a business firm was constructed. [...]If I have the opportunity, I will leave too’130.However, behind these complaints, it seemsthat these people do not want to live in Elma-da¤ any more as they consider here a culturallycorrupted neighborhood where different kindsof people from lower-middle class are dwell-ing. They imply that it is not possible to consti-tute neighborly relations with such people.

Nevertheless, at the last instance residents’decision of leaving the neighborhood dependson their economic capabilities as well as theircultural patterns. Not only the material wealthbut their life style, their education level andeven their consumption patterns are the leadingfactors in their decision of movement. Interest-ingly, some of the Kurds having good incomedo not prefer to settle down in another neigh-borhood. Their possession of shops and theapartments in Elmada¤, whereas most of theinhabitants are just tenants in this neighbor-hood, can be a proof of their intentions of stayinghere. A Kurdish interviewee whose economicposition is better than many other inhabitantsin Elmada¤ proposed that ‘First of all we wantto pursue a modest and simple life. If we pushourselves, we can even dwell in Etiler. Howe-ver, Elmada¤ is more convenient for our lifestyle. We can lose a lot in Etiler. This will not

126 ‘Ermeniler vard›. Komflulu¤u çok iyiydi. Zevkli, sefal›, kibar komfluluk vard›. Sonra bu Kürtler gelince h›rs›zl›kkorkusuyla kimse soka¤a ç›kamaz oldu ... Anadolu ak›n edince buraya, onlar da [Ermeniler] abbas yolcukaçt›lar’.

127 ‘fiimdi her türlü milletten geldiler ‹stanbul’a’.128 It is interesting to see that everybody gave different dates about the ‘coming’ of the Gypsies to the neighborhood.

While one of the old inhabitants talked about the presence of Gypsies in the lower side of Elmada¤ in the 1940s,another one suggested that Gypsies in Talimhane moved to Elmada¤ between the years of 1950 and 1960 aftertheir barracks were destroyed. As we mentioned before, although the Gypsies are among the oldest inhabitantsof this neighborhood, they are always conceived as the outsiders.

129 ‘Bunlar medenileflip, Elmada¤’in afla¤› sokaklar›na Bay Ahmet Bayan Ayfle olarak yerlefltiler’.130 ‘Eskiden komfluluk iliflkisi vard›. Onlar gitti, evleri de y›k›ld›. yan›m›z iflyeri oldu. [...] F›rsat›m olsa ben de

giderim’.


53

be healthy for us. Therefore, we are glad to livehere’131.

Along with the Kurds, some of the Muslimswho emigrated from Anatolia during the 1950sconsider themselves as having the economicmeans to settle in a ‘better neighborhood’. Yet,they mentioned that they are glad to live inElmada¤ with the people like them. They thinkthat they would not be as comfortable in anoth-er neighborhood as they are in Elmada¤. Mostof the interviewees from this group are localsmall-scale entrepreneurs who are involved inbusiness in Elmada¤ such as real estate agents orcontractors. They believe that they are respectedpeople in Elmada¤, which cannot be acquiredin another neighborhood easily. What is strik-ing for this group is their mostly well-educatedchildren’s desire to dwell in another neighbor-hood. Like bobos, university students and wageearner singles, the children of Anatolian immi-grants regard their stay in Elmada¤ as tempo-rary. Correspondingly, the Iraqi people whodo not have any intention of staying in Turkeyin the long run consider their settlement inElmada¤ as temporary. The longest duration oftheir stay in Elmada¤ until now is about fiveyears.

***

People, who have the chance of moving toanother neighborhood, would not pass over thischance when they have the economic means.The transformation of Elmada¤ from a middleclass to a lower-middle class neighborhood andits rising cultural heterogeneity due to the indefi-nite immigration flows are some reasons behindthe aspiration to move out of the neighborhood.The headman of the ‹nönü neighborhoodinformed us that while 7,500 people were dwell-ing in Elmada¤ 15 year ago, today its popula-tion is around 4,000-5,000 which illustrates aradical decrease in the nighttime population.The spread of workplaces after 1980s in theneighborhood is a significant aspect causing thedecline of population. The increasing density ofbusiness offices in the streets of Elmada¤ hascertainly weakened the ties among the inhabit-ants and led to the disappearance of ‘old neigh-

borhood atmosphere’ where close neighborlyrelations took place. On the other hand, as wementioned in the previous pages, many peopleconsider Elmada¤ as a transit area and theirstay here as temporary. All these factors -thegeneral discontentment about Elmada¤, theexistence of workplaces and the presence oftransit inhabitants- have impeded the develop-ment of the ‘feeling of belongingness’ to thisneighborhood. Even some of the old inhabitantsseem to break off their ties with Elmada¤ espe-cially after their close friends or relatives leftthe neighborhood.

Nevertheless, inhabitants’ widespread discon-tentment about Elmada¤ and thus their aspira-tion to move to a ‘better neighborhood’ shouldnot bring us to the idea that Elmada¤ would bethoroughly left by its inhabitants and turnedinto an entire business location. Elmada¤ seemsto be a permanent home for some of the people:for example, low-income non-Muslim familieshaving no economic means, some of the Mus-lim immigrants of the 1950s making use of theirrelations in Elmada¤ to earn their livelihoodand some Kurdish immigrants believing to pro-tect their cultural identities in Elmada¤ betterthan elsewhere would be the willing andunwilling inhabitants of Elmada¤. For thetransit inhabitants, we can suggest that theirtemporary stay does not mean that this neigh-borhood would not be inhabited by the mem-bers of this group after they move to anotherneighborhood, rather it signifies their ‘constantcirculation’ in Elmada¤. In other words, even ifthey leave the neighborhood, new people fromtheir groups would settle in Elmada¤. For exam-ple, although the university students and wageearner singles leave Elmada¤ for living in a‘better neighborhood’, new university studentsand wage earner singles would move intoElmada¤ who find this neighborhood an attract-ive place in regard to its location and relativelylow rents. Though the feeling of belongingnessto Elmada¤ is very weak among the inhabitantstoday, different groups of people would contin-ue to dwell here concerning their interests.Thus, Elmada¤ will continue to be ‘a neighbor-hood in flux’ in the future as well.

131 ‘Biz her fleyden önce sade yaflamak, orta halli yaflamak istiyoruz. Biz kendimizi zorlasak Etiler’de de oturabili-riz ama Elmada¤ bizim yaflant›m›za uygun. Etiler’de birçok fleyi kaybedebiliriz. Bizim için sa¤l›kl› olmaz. O yüz-den memnunuz burdan’.


Conclusion

In this research, we aimed to analyze the socialand functional transformations of a neighbor-hood. Our starting point was a spatially bound-ed area, Elmada¤, which is enclosed amongCumhuriyet Street on the east, Dolapdere Streeton the west and Yedikuyular Street on the south.We tried to discover the sociological character-istics of this topographically defined area byfiguring out the consequences of various socialand spatial transformations.

In our project, among several observationsand inferences on Elmada¤, we singled outthree main arguments, which we have discussedin detail. First, we made observations about thefunctional and residential transformation of theneighborhood in the past and present. Second-ly, we paid specific attention to the incessantmigration flows that Elmada¤ has been subject-ed for years. And lastly, we tried to figure outthe interactions as well as feeling of belonging-ness of inhabitants in the neighborhood espe-cially under the issue of their movements inand out of the neighborhood. In the followingpages, we want to conclude our study underthese three headings that could be summarizedas analyses on the location, migration flows andfeeling of belongingness.

*****

What appears to the outsider as a homoge-neous and perhaps static district can in fact bequite heterogeneous in terms of social and cul-tural traits. Elmada¤, as an example for suchhighly mixed settlement areas has constantlybeen in a state of change. Initially, it becameknown as a non-Muslim location on the periph-ery of the built-up area more than a centuryago. The early era of neighborhood was charac-terized with the existence of formal institutionstargeting mainly the Catholic community.Indeed, towards the turn of the century, theempty land lying in the opposite direction ofthe large Armenian cemetery came out as a newneighborhood with several Catholic institu-tions: a hospital (Surp Agop Hospital, 1837), achurch (St. Esprit Church, 1846), and twoschools (Notre Dame de Sion School, 1856 andSt. Esprit primary school attached to theChurch).

The development of the neighborhood wenthand in hand with the Westernization move-

ment of the 19th century, which manifesteditself in the restructuring of the urban space.Elmada¤, along with new neighborhoods suchas Teflvikiye, Cihangir and Niflantafl›, becamepopularized as the historical peninsula lost itsallure for the Ottoman elite who yearned for liv-ing closely to the new palaces in Dolmabahçeand Y›ld›z. During the same period, Pera-Beyo¤luturned out to be more and more attractive as theloci of ‘European taste’ by the Western embas-sies, shops and entertainment activities. Thedevelopment of Elmada¤ district is thus relatedboth to the residential movement of Ottomanbureaucracy as well as to the expansion ofBeyo¤lu towards new locations that carriedsimilar aspirations of life style.

In the past, the majority of the inhabitants ofElmada¤ were non-Muslims with different eco-nomic status. The affluent non-Muslims as thedescendants of the urban bourgeoisie settled inthe western style apartments of the prestigiousCumhuriyet Street, whereas the low incomenon-Muslims were living in the inner streets ofElmada¤. The Catholic institutions settled inElmada¤ have provided the educational, reli-gious and social services for lower income andneedy people of the community. In the past,these formal organizations have played a lead-ing role in fostering social relations among theresidents of the neighborhood and in creationof a socially integrated fabric within the citybased on religious social networks. Yet, duringthe Republican era, the weakening of theseCatholic institutions as well as the immigrationof the non-Muslims to other neighborhoods andcountries became the two mutually influentialfactors that paved the way for Elmada¤’s trans-formation from mainly a non-Muslim neighbor-hood to an ethnically and religiously heterogene-ous location.

Cumhuriyet Street has always been an under-lying factor in determining the socio-spatialtexture of the neighborhood. In the 1950s theconstruction of several international hotels andconcurrently the opening of tourism agencies aswell as the branches of several banks on theCumhuriyet Street redefined the functionalstatus of the neighborhood and contributed tothe shift of new corporate and banking center tothe north. The heydays of Cumhuriyet Streetcontinued till the mid-1970s with its newlyconstructed Western style apartments, cinemas,


55

theatres, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels andpublic buildings. Yet, as city center has movedfurther to north, the attractiveness of Cumhuri-yet Street and thus Elmada¤ have begun to fadeaway.

Far from claiming that Elmada¤ has turnedout to be a purely business location in the cen-ter of the city, we should note that Elmada¤ hasstarted to be an attractive location for severalsmall entrepreneurs opening workplaces hereto serve the people working on the CumhuriyetStreet. The newly opened workplaces, such asrestaurants, parking lots, coiffeurs in the streetsof Elmada¤, which are profoundly dependenton the customers working mostly on the Cum-huriyet Street, actually have nothing to do withthe locals of Elmada¤ who are mostly lowincome earners. This relative economic depend-ency of these workplaces on people working atthe offices of the Cumhuriyet Street remains asa remarkable feature in shaping the neighbor-hood’s business inclinations.

*****

Elmada¤ which has always been a home forimmigrants turns out to be a neighborhood thatis constantly in flux, transition and transforma-tion. The formation of the neighborhood neverceases owing to the endless population circula-tions within the location. The current heteroge-neous inhabitant profile of the neighborhood isindebted to the incessant migration flowsoccurred in different periods. As we mentionedin the third chapter, Elmada¤ has been subject-ed to three main migration flows: Anatolianimmigration of 1950’s, Kurdish immigrationstarting with mid-1980s and lastly, internation-al immigration after the 1990s which all haddifferent consequences on the social transfor-mation of the neighborhood.

The first influential immigration wave toElmada¤, the rural-to-urban immigration of the1950s and 1960s, occurred almost simultane-ously with the departure of non-Muslim inhab-itants of the neighborhood. The switch of non-Muslims by Muslims in Elmada¤ had variousconsequences, including economic ones sinceit gave rise to a transfer of wealth and jobs fromthe former to the latter group in the years ofWealth Tax and 6th-7th September events. Eventhough we have not official verifications con-firmed by the data of the Deed Office (Tapu

Müdürlü¤ü) the interviews conducted with theinhabitants clearly illustrated that Elmada¤ wasone of neighborhoods where a significantwealth transfer occurred. One should also notethat, most of these transactions were compliantwith the laws, yet the buildings were soldbelow their actual value due to the heavy taxburden imposed on non-Muslims and theirimmediate emigration from Turkey. Consecu-tively this contributed to the ability of thenew Anatolian residents to be house-owners forrelatively lower prices.

Under the light of the interviews, we singledout the Anatolian immigrants into two catego-ries, such as the early and latecomers. We callthe people who came to Elmada¤ with somesort of capital in early 1950s ‘the winners of themassive migration’. The winners generallyworked as drivers when they first came to thecity and after they accumulated the requiredcapital, they became small-scale retailers ofElmada¤, such as butchers and grocers. Thenthey continued their ways as building contract-ors and real estate agents as their economic cap-ital has increased. The reasons behind the rapideconomic upward mobility of this group can beexplained by the macro dynamics, such as thedeparture of the non-Muslim community andthe liberal policies followed by the govern-ments of the era. Not only did the Anatolianimmigrants buy the properties of non-Muslimsat a lower value but they also benefited fromopportunities put forward by governmentalpolicies such as the incentives for constructingbuildings and roads. In this respect, the 1950sand early 1960s, also the 1980s later on, areoften declared as ‘the golden era’ in terms oftheir economic advancement. Likewise, Mende-res and Özal represent the two ‘holy’ figures forthe successful pioneer immigrants who wereable to utilize the rapid upward mobility oppor-tunities of the postwar economic boom era. Thecorrespondence between macro transforma-tions that the country has passed through andthe stories of the first immigrants is very illumi-nating in the sense of comprehending the microrepercussions of the liberal politics followed byseveral Turkish governments.

On the other hand, the latecomers wereunable to be as successful as their predecessors.The reasons of their being losers is related totheir immigration to the city without any capi-tal or the lack of new opportunities which had


already been exploited by the early comers.Interestingly, 10 years of time lag of their immi-gration and lack of even a small amount ofmoney seem a lot in fulfilling a success story inthe city. The latecomers, or losers of the immi-gration, are still working in low-income jobs(such as doormen) in Elmada¤ without showingany clue of an upward mobility. The economicdifferentiation between these two groups alsoreflects to their spatial segregation regarding tothe fact that the latecomers mostly live in thelower side of Elmada¤ in very old houses.

A relatively invisible social component ofElmada¤ is the Armenians who came fromAnatolia with the massive rural-to-urban migra-tion wave in the 1960s and 1970s. Unlike theother non-Muslim inhabitants who have already‘promoted’ themselves by moving to betterneighborhoods and unlike ‘the winners of mas-sive migration’ who arrived to Elmada¤ almostin the same years, the Armenian emigrants fromAnatolia could not move up the socio-economicladder and get stuck in Elmada¤. Their lack ofambition for economic success and their effortsto be invisible in public sphere seem to be relat-ed to the somber memory of Wealth Tax or 6th-7th September Events.

Kurdish immigrants who came to Elmada¤after the mid 1980s illustrate different charac-teristics from the Anatolian immigrants of1950s in the sense that most of them left theirhometowns because of political reasons, not ofseeking for an economic prosperity. Given thefact that the Kurdish immigrants in Elmada¤immigrated to the city with a certain amount ofmoney and afterwards turned this money into acertain form of property, mostly owning a gro-cery, their economic accomplishment in thecity has more or less been achieved. In thissense, they are generally in better condition incomparison to the other Kurds dwelling inTarlabafl› who mostly pursue a life under theconditions of survival. Although most of theinterviewed ones in Elmada¤ expressed theiryearning for returning back to their hometownsas soon as possible, their possession of realestates in the neighborhood shows that theywould be the ones who stay in Elmada¤ in thelong run.

Most of the international immigrants inElmada¤ are from North Iraq and nearly all ofthem are Catholic Chaldeans who actually left

their countries because of political and eco-nomic reasons. The presence of the Caritasorganization in the location is the underlyingfactor in their selection of Elmada¤ in Istanbulfor their temporary stay. Nearly all of the inter-national immigrants claimed that they havebeen waiting for the results for their officialapplications. This shows their definite decisionof leaving Turkey if their application is accept-ed by a third country. Yet, their long waitingperiods in Turkey have all forced them to workillegally under the conditions of survival andexploitation.

This highly mixed social environment inElmada¤ corresponds with a spatial differenti-ation in the neighborhood. As in the past, inparallel to the topography of the neighborhood,the social and economic status of inhabitantsdecrease from upper to lower streets of theneighborhood. The streets closer to the Cum-huriyet Street (like Ölçek and Babil Streets) aremostly inhabited by better-off groups in com-parison to ones living in the streets closer toDolapdere (such as Küçükbay›r and HarbiyeÇay›r› Streets). The socioeconomic distinctionbetween the inhabitants of Elmada¤ representsitself in the spatial segregation of the neighbor-hood given the fact that nearly all of the margi-nalized groups such as Gypsies, Kurds andtransit immigrants are living in the lowerstreets next to Dolapdere.

*****

It is clear that the very heterogeneous char-acter of Elmada¤ arising out of the incessantimmigration flows of people seems one of themost important obstacles for the constitution ofElmada¤ as a community based neighborhood.Yet we claim that not only the heterogeneouscharacter of the ethnic groups living together inElmada¤ but more importantly the diversityand differentiation within the ethnic groups isfundamental in strengthening the non-commu-nity tendencies of Elmada¤. In other words,the existence of different social and economicfractures within the supposedly same ethnicgroups in Elmada¤ have always intersectedwith each other preventing a strong establish-ment of a community feeling. In this respect,even the establishment of several ethnic en-claves within the neighborhood seems impossi-ble since the massive departure of non-Muslimcommunities in the 1960s. Therefore the feeling


of belongingness to a neighborhood arising outof some kind of a human association amongdifferent groups of people does not exist inElmada¤. Two different examples clearly illus-trate this argument. Unlike the firm social net-works of the previous non-Muslim communityin Elmada¤, the Muslim immigrants have notestablished their own local organizations, whichgenerally function as the meeting places forsocial interaction and solidarity132. The secondexample is from the Kurdish immigrants whodo not necessarily form social ties with otherKurds but people sharing the similar politicalthoughts. On the contrary, many of the politi-cized Kurds have disapproving ideas aboutsome other Kurds whom they define as ‘apoliti-cal’ or ‘assimilated’ in Turkish society.

As we mentioned above also the ethnic andreligious differences among the groups create abarrier for the integration of the neighborhoodas a community. Kurds, Gypsies, internationalimmigrants (especially the ones coming fromthe African countries) are the ones blamed forthe decadence of the neighborhood by most ofthe old inhabitants. Many times in several con-versations, we came across these complaintsabout the presence of these groups dwelling inElmada¤. Sometimes this restless feeling on theside of both Muslim and non-Muslim inhabit-ants latently showed itself in the nostalgia of thepast good days of the neighborhood and some-times it manifested itself explicitly by directlyaccusing the Kurds/Gypsies/Africans in mess-ing up the peaceful atmosphere of the neigh-borhood. Yet, the cultural discrimination againstthese marginalized groups though reflectingitself plainly in the spatial segregation, do notturn into an explicit hatred or tension amongthe groups. Ironically, the weak ties among theinhabitants of the neighborhood turns into anadvantage preventing any kind of tensionbetween these groups.

The only neighborly relations among thegroups of inhabitants in Elmada¤ seem to beoccurring among the Iraqi immigrants. With afew exceptions among the old inhabitants ofthe neighborhood, we can generalize the ideathat the single tie connecting the inhabitantseach other has been gaining more and morea commercial character. In the neighborhood,human association is tied up with commercialbonds (or money economy as Simmel puts it)among the dwellers who have ran shops, realestates or involved in construction business.They all have been dependent on each othereconomically, which in a way make them con-trol and hide their ‘real’ feelings about otherinhabitants. In brief, commercial ties preventany kind of tangible tension among the inhabit-ants.

On the other hand, transit dwellers, such asbobos, single wage earners and university stu-dents as well as the international immigrantslack any kind of feeling of belongingness to theneighborhood. Their temporary stay makesElmada¤ a neighborhood that is neither takencare of nor supported as a community-neighbor-hood, which has been realized in the cases ofCihangir, Arnavutköy and Kuzguncuk. Thesegroups really care about the neighborhood aslong as their interests are at stake133.

As we mentioned before, Elmada¤ has beengetting more and more a neighborhood of depar-ture. Moving out of this location has become amajor motive for several inhabitants. After accu-mulating the necessary economic capital andensuring the cultural assets, most inhabitantsprefer to move to other neighborhoods. Amongthe people who have immigrated or moved toElmada¤ since the 1980s, or let’s say new resi-dents, only the Kurds plan to live in Elmada¤ inthe long run. All the other new residents intendto leave the neighborhood as soon as theysupply the necessary requirements. On the other

57

132 There is one single mosque in Elmada¤ which is ‘created’ in an apartment on Babil Street by putting analuminum minaret on the roof of the building. Although most of the Muslim inhabitants define themselves as‘religious’ persons, they lack the willingness to get organized to build a ‘real’ mosque in Elmada¤.

133 This is the case when the dwellers of Arif Pafla Manor have decided to initiate a civil society undertaking againsta project proposing to construct a commercial center just the opposite side of their building, which would def-initely spoil the view of Arif Pafla dwellers. Yet, during our interviews we realized that the interest of Arif Pafladwellers in the neighborhood is very much restricted to the Arif Pafla Manor and they are not even aware ofsome basic facts about the neighborhood.


hand, among the old inhabitants, only the Ana-tolian immigrants seem to stay in Elmada¤since they still earn their livings through run-ning business in Elmada¤. In particular almostall non-Muslims who have stayed in Elmada¤because of financial difficulties desperatelywant to move to other neighborhoods as soon asthey supply the money needed for their depar-ture. In brief, Kurdish immigrants and Anatoli-an immigrants of 1950s seem to be the ‘real’inhabitants of Elmada¤ in the long run.

*****

In order to make projections about the futureof Elmada¤, it is necessary to take into accountthe historical luggage of the neighborhood.Although Cihangir, Kurtulufl, Teflvikiye, Tarla-bafl›, and Elmada¤ have more or less similarfounding stories, today they are quite differentfrom each other. While Cihangir and in a lesserdegree Teflvikiye-Niflantafl› are now two of thefew gentrified neighborhoods of Istanbul,Tarlabafl› has become a slum inhabited by thenew urban poor of Istanbul. Kurtulufl is stillkeeping its non-Muslim residential area charac-ter, though it is not anymore exclusively reservedfor Greeks. What is the explanation of thesediffering outcomes in these adjacent neigh-borhoods? We believe that the explanation isgrounded on the interaction of social and spa-tial factors. For instance, the settlement of well-educated, westernized middle class immigrantsfrom Thessaloniki during the turn of the centu-ry to Teflvikiye-Niflantafl› endorsed the preser-vation of its prestigious status. Cihangir, whichwas ruined and destitute for long years, hasbeen gentrified in the 1990s thanks to its close-ness to Taksim-Beyo¤lu area, and the re-discov-ery of its undamaged historical buildings andscenery by the artists, intellectuals and academ-ics. Meanwhile Tarlabafl› has become more andmore desolate since its connection with Taksimwas cut off after the widening of the Tarlabafl›Boulevard during Dalan’s term.

Elmada¤ neither preserved nor improved itshigh social standing and historical architectur-al value, since it has become a magnet mainlyfor low-educated and low-income immigrantgroups. Besides, unlike Cihangir or Teflvikiye,which are both located on relatively secludedniches, Elmada¤ (being situated on the mainaxis between Taksim and Mecidiyeköy) hasalways been affected from the transformations

of Cumhuriyet Street. This has also been influ-ential in increasing the business tendenciesin the neighborhood and the squeezing of thealready tight housing supply as the amount ofland devoted for offices augmented. All thesefactors have led to decrease the appeal ofElmada¤ as a residential area and the fleeingaway of middle class families with children.

One of the possible alternatives for thefuture of Elmada¤ seems to be gentrification.However, once more the history of the neigh-borhood seems to be decisive in shaping itsfuture. One of the obstacles against gentrifica-tion in Elmada¤ is its land property structure.Except the large land owned by the Surp AgopFoundation on the southern edge of the neigh-borhood and the one where the Vatican embassyis located, all the rest of the neighborhood isbased on very small parcels of land. The effectof this land pattern showed itself in the build-and-sell activities of the 1970s and 1980s:contractors were obliged to buy the property ofat least a few houses to build a new one. Thisbuilding contracting activities resulted in theactual patchwork pattern where a five-storyinelegant new apartment stands just next to anold, picturesque, three-story stone house builton 40-50 square meter ground surface. Thedestruction of the original architectural style ofthe neighborhood due to the build-and-sellactivities is an impediment for a potential gen-trification movement in Elmada¤. A renovationcan now only be realized in the large parcel ofland owned by Surp Agop Foundation, whichincludes the row houses on the Elmada¤ Streetand the terrain where fian Theatre once located.Indeed, the recent changes in the law about theminority foundations can open the way for theSurp Agop Foundation to sell its land to the bigconstruction companies which have alreadybeen eagerly waiting for building a large shop-ping and entertainment center there.

In this study, we tried to shed light on the socialand spatial transformations of a particular frag-ment of urban space in Istanbul. In conjunctionwith some common social patterns, such as themassive rural-to-urban migration, that apply toevery neighborhood, we also tried to identifythe processes giving different shapes to Elma-da¤. We hope that this study can contribute fora future multifaceted comparative analysis ofIstanbul.


59

Akar R›dvan (2000) Aflkale Yolcular›: Varl›k Vergisi veÇal›flma Kamplar›, ‹stanbul: Belge Yay›nlar›.

Akbayar, Nuri (ed.) (1998) Dünden Bugüne Befliktafl,Befliktafl Belediye Baflkanl›¤› Yay›nlar›.

Akbayar, Nuri (1994) ‘Teflvikiye’ in ‹stanbul Ansiklo-pedisi, Tarih Vakf› Yurt Yay›nlar›, V.7,pp.256-257.

Aktar, Ayhan (2000) “Cumhuriyet’in ilk Y›llar›ndaUygulanan Türklefltirme Politikalar›’ in Varl›kVergisi ve Türklefltirme Politikalar›, ‹stanbul:‹letiflim Yay›nevi, pp.113-125.

Aksoy, Asu & Robbins, Kevin (1995) ‘Ezilen ‹stan-bul’un Dönüflü’ in ‹stanbul, No.14. ‹stanbul:Tarih Vakf› Yay›nlar›.

Alus, Sermet Muhtar (1995) ‹stanbul Kazan Ben Kep-çe, ‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›nlar›.

Ayd›n, Suavi (1996) ‘Türkiye’de Etnik Yap›’ in Cum-huriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol.12,‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›nlar›, pp.496-514.

Baydar Oya (1994) ‘Göç’ in ‹stanbul Ansiklopedisi,Tarih Vakf› Yurt Yay›nlar›, V.3, pp.406-410.

Berkmen Yakar, Hülya (2000) ‘Küreselleflen KentteKüreselleflemeyen Çarfl›lar’ ‹stanbul, 35: 118-126.

Bozdo¤an, Sibel (1997) ‘The Predicament of Modern-ism in Turkish Architectural Culture: AnOverview’ in Bozdo¤an, Sibel & Kasaba, Reflat(eds.) Rethinking Modernity and National Iden-tity in Turkey, Seattle: University of Washing-ton Press, pp.133-156.

Böcker, Anita (1996) ‘Refugee and Asylum-SeekingMigration from Turkey to Western Europe’Bo¤aziçi Journal: Review of Social, Economicand Administrative Studies, 10(1-2): 55-75.

Ça¤atay, Emre (1998) ‘Taksim’de Varm›fl Bir Apartman’in ‹stanbul, No. 27, pp.61-64.

Clifford, James (1986) ‘Introduction Partial Truths’ inClifford James and Marcus George (eds.) Writ-ing Culture, Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, pp. 1-27.

Clifford, James (1988) ‘On Ethnographic Authority’,in Clifford James (ed) The Predicament of Cul-ture, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,pp.21-55.

Çelik, Zeynep (1986) The Remaking of ‹stanbul: Por-trait of an Ottoman City in the 19th century,Seattle: University of California Press.

De Amicis, Edmondo (1993) ‹stanbul (çev. BeynunAkyavafl) Türk Tarih Kurumu Yay›nlar› (1stpubl. 1874).

Duben, Alan & Behar, Cem (1991) ‹stanbul House-holds: Marriage, family and fertility 1880-1940. Cambridge University Press.

Erder, Sema (2000) ‘Uluslararas› Göçte Yeni E¤ilim-ler: Türkiye “Göç Alan” Ülke mi?’ in Atacan,Fulya, Ercan, Fuat, Türkay, Mehmet, and Kur-tulufl, Hatice (eds.) Mübeccel K›ray ‹çinYaz›lar, ‹stanbul: Ba¤lam, pp.235-259.

Erder, Sema (2000) ‘Nerelisin Hemflerim?’ in Keyder,Ça¤lar (ed.) ‹stanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Aras›n-da, ‹stanbul: Metis Yay›nlar›, pp.192-205.

Erder, Sema (1996) ‹stanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu: Üm-raniye, ‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›nlar›.

Flanagan, William G. (1994) Contemporary UrbanSociology, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ifl›k, O¤uz (1996) ‘Türkiye’de Kent ve Kentleflme’ inYüzy›l Biterken: Cumhuriyet Dönemi TürkiyeAnsiklopedisi, V.13, ‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›nlar›.

Ifl›k, O¤uz & P›narc›o¤lu Melih (2001) Nöbetlefle Yok-sulluk: Gecekondulaflma ve Kent Yoksullar›,Sultanbeyli Örne¤i, ‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›n-lar›.

‹çduygu, Ahmet & Keyman, Fuat (2000) ‘Globaliza-tion, Security and Migration: the case of Tur-key’ Global Governance, 6(3): 383-398.

‹çduygu, Ahmet, Romano David & Sirkeci, ‹brahim(1999) ‘The Ethnic Question in an Environ-ment of Insecurity: the Kurds in Turkey’ Eth-nic & Racial Studies, 22(6): 991-1010.

Istanbul fiehir Rehberi, Istanbul Büyükflehir BelediyesiYay›nlar›,1989. (scale 1/10000)

Kastaryano, Riva (1991) ‘Passage par Galata: mobilitésociale des Juifs d’‹stanbul.’ in Varia Turcicano.13. ISIS. ‹stanbul- Paris.

Kazgan, Gülten (1999) Kufltepe Araflt›rmas› 1999,‹stanbul: ‹stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yay›nlar›.

Keyder, Ça¤lar & Öncü, Ayfle (1993) Istanbul and theConcept of World Cities. ‹stanbul: FriedrichEbert Foundation Publications.

Keyder, Ça¤lar (2000) ‘Enformel Konut Piyasas›ndanKüresel Konut Piyasas›na’ in Keyder, Ça¤lar(ed.) ‹stanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Aras›nda, ‹s-tanbul: Metis Yay›nlar›, pp.171-191.

Bibliography


K›ray, Mübeccel (1998) ‘Apartmanlaflma ve ModernOrta Tabakalar’ in Kentleflme Yaz›lar›. Ba¤lamYay›nlar›. pp.138-141.

Kiriflçi, Kemal (2000) ‘Disaggregating TurkishCitizenship and Immigration Practices’ Mid-dle Eastern Studies, 36(3): 1-22.

Kiriflçi, Kemal (2001) ‘UNHCR and Turkey: NudgingTurkey towards a better implementation ofthe 1951 Convention on the Status of Refu-gees’, paper presented at the 7th IRAP Confer-ence, The Refugee Convention at 50, 8-11 Janu-ary 2001, Eskom Conference Center, SouthAfrica,http://www.pols.boun.edu.tr/guyeskom. doc

Kiriflçi, Kemal and Winrow, Gareth M. (1997) TheKurdish Question and Turkey: an example of atrans-state ethnic conflict, London; Portland,Or. : Frank Cass.

Köksal, Sema & Kara, Nihal (1990). ‘1980 sonras›ndayerel siyasetin örgütlenmesi ve belediyeler’ inToplum ve Bilim, V.48-49, pp.117-128.

Köymen, Oya (1999) ‘Cumhuriyet Döneminde Tar›m-sal Yap› ve Tar›m Politikalar›’ in 75 Y›lda Köy-lerden fiehirlere, Tarih Vakf› Yay›nlar›. pp.1-30.

Macar, Elçin (1997) ‘‹stanbul Katolik Rum CemaatininSonu’ in Tarih ve Toplum, no.165, pp.43-46.

Marmara, Rinaldo (1999) ‘Latin Mezarl›¤›’ in ‹stan-bul, V.29, pp.30-33.

Marmara, Rinaldo (2000) ‘Pangalt›’ in ‹stanbul, V.34,2000, pp.56-58.

Marmara, Rinaldo (2001) ‘Papa Roncalli: ÖlçekSokak’›n Yeni Ad›’, in Toplumsal Tarih, No.85,January, pp.57-59.

Marmara, Rinaldo. Brochure on ‘’Angelo GiuseppeRoncalli: Jean XXIII Ami des Turcs’. LatinKatolik Ruhani Reisli¤i.

Martinez, Romeo (1996) ‹flgal ‹stanbul’undan foto¤-raflar (Frans›z Ordusu Sinema-Foto¤raf Servisi-Romeo Martinez’in arflivinden), ‹stanbul:Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf›.

Migration Information Programme (1995) ‘TransitMigration in Turkey’ International Organizationfor Migration(IOM) Report.

Minh-Ha, Trinh T. (1997) ‘No Master Territories’ inAshcroft, Bill, Griffiths, Gareth and Tiffin,Helen (eds.) The Post-colonial Studies Reader,London: Routledge, pp.215-218.

Oberdiek, Helmut (2001) ‘Zorunlu Göç ve Avrupa’daMültecilik’ in Peker, Y.Bülent (ed.) S›¤›nmaHakk› ve Mülteciler, Ankara: ‹nsan Haklar›Dernegi.

Osmay, Sevil (1999) ‘1923’ten Bugüne Kent Merkez-lerinin Dönüflümü’ in Sey, Y›ld›z (ed.) 75 Y›ldaDe¤iflen Kent ve Mimarl›k, ‹stanbul: Tarih Vakf›Yay›nlar›, pp.139-154.

Ö¤renci, P›nar (2001) ‘Mimar Constantin P. Pappa’ in‹stanbul, No.36, pp.25-32.

Öncü, Ayfle (1999) ‘‹stanbulites and Others: TheCultural Cosmology of Being Middle Class inthe Era of Globalism’ in Keyder, Ça¤lar (ed.)‹stanbul: Between the Global and the Local,Rowman & Littlefield Publ., pp. 95-119.

Özbay, Ferhunde (1997) ‘Migration and Intra-provin-cial movements in ‹stanbul between 1985-1990’ in Bo¤aziçi Journal, V.11, No.1-2, pp.115-150.

Peker, Mümtaz (1999) ‘Türkiye’de ‹çgöçün De¤iflenYap›s›’ in 75 Y›lda Köylerden fiehirlere, TarihVakf› Yay›nlar›. pp.295-304.

Poulton, Hugh (1997) Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent:Turkish nationalism and the Turkish Republic,London: Hurst & Co.

Roussos-Milidonis, Markos N. (1999) ‘19.yüzy›l‹stanbul’unda Katolik Az›nl›k’ in 19.yüzy›l‹stanbul’unda Gayrimüslimler, Pinelopi Stathis(ed.) ‹stanbul: Tarih Vakf› Yurt Yay›nlar›.

Said, Edward W. (1989) ‘Representing the Colonized:Anthropology’s Interlocutors’ Critical Inquiry,15(2): 205-225.

Salman, Feray (2001) ‘Enforced Migration’ Flüchtling-srat, 77: 27-30.

Savage Mike & WARDE Alan (1993) Urban Sociology,Capitalism and Modernity, London: Macmillan.

Seropyan, Vagarsag (1994) ‘Ermeni Mezarl›klar›’ in‹stanbul Ansiklopedisi, V.3, pp. 185-186.

Sezer, Ayten (1999) Atatürk Döneminde Yabanc›Okullar (1923-1938), Ankara: Türk Tarih Ku-rumu.

fienyap›l›, Tans› (1998) “Cumhuriyetin 75. y›l›, gece-kondunun 50. y›l›” ‘ in Sey, Y›ld›z(ed.) 75 Y›ldaDe¤iflen Kent ve Mimarl›k, ‹stanbul: Tarih Vak-f› Yay›nlar›, pp.301-316.

fiiflli Rehberi (1987) ‹stanbul: fiiflli Belediyesi Yay›n-lar›.

Tanyeli, U¤ur (1998) ‘Y›karak Yapmak’ in Üç KuflakCumhuriyet, ‹stanbul: Tarih Vakf› Yay›nlar›,pp. 111-114.

Tanyeli, U¤ur (1998) ‘Yeni Topluma Yeni Konut’ inÜç Kuflak Cumhuriyet, Tarih Vakf› Yay›nlar›,pp.139 -145.

TAV [Foundation for Social Research, Culture andArts] (2001) ‘Refugees and Turkey’ Flüchtlings-rat, 77: 5-19.

Tekeli, ‹lhan (1992) ‘Development of Urban Adminis-tration and Planning in the Formation of ‹stan-bul Metropolitan Area’ in Development of ‹stan-bul Metropolitan Area and Low Cost Housing,Joint publication of Turkish Social ScienceAssociation, Municipality of Greater ‹stanbuland IULA-EMME, pp. 3-111.


61

Tekeli ‹lhan (1998) ‘Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet Döne-minde Kentsel Geliflme ve Kent Planlamas›’ in75 Y›lda De¤iflen Kent ve Mimarl›k.Tarih Vak-f› Yay›nlar›.

TMMOB (1999) ‘Zorunlu Göçün Diyarbak›r Örne¤in-de Araflt›r›lmas›’ in Baydar, Oya(ed.) 75 Y›ldaKöylerden fiehirlere, ‹stanbul: Tarih Vakf›Yay›nlar›, pp.342-352.

Tümertekin, Erol (1997) ‹stanbul, ‹nsan ve Mekan,‹stanbul: Tarih Vakf› Yurt Yay›nlar›

Türker, Orhan (1998) Tatavla: Osmanl› ‹stanbul’un-dan Bir Köfle, ‹stanbul: Sel Yay›nc›l›k.

Üstdiken, Behzat (1994) ‘Cihangir’, ‹stanbul Ansiklo-pedisi, Tarih Vakf› Yurt Yay›nlar›, V.7, pp. 430-431.

Uzun, Cemile Nil (2001) Gentrification in ‹stanbul: ADiagnostic Study, Utrecht: Netherlands Geo-graphical Studies.

Wahlbeck, Östen (1999) Kurdish Diasporas: a compar-ative study of Kurdish refugee communities,New York: St.Martin’s Press.

Wharton, Annabel (1999) ‘Economy, Architecture, andPolitics: colonialist and cold war hotels’ His-tory of Political Economy, 31(Economic Engage-ments with Art supplement): 285-299.

Zaim, Sabahaddin (1987) ‘Urbanization Trends inTurkey’ in (ed.) Abdülaziz Y Saqqaf. ‘The Mid-dle East City: Ancient traditions confront amodern world’, Paragon House Publ.

* ‘Osmanl›’da Ermeniler (1735-1851): Ermenilerin‹çtimai Vaziyeti’ in http://www.agos.com.tr/osmanli/3_ucuncudevir.htm

* Brochure on the history of the Surp Agop Hospital,prepared by the Surp Agop Foundation.

* Brochure about the studies of Caritas Organizationin Turkey, Caritas Türkiye.


série : la Turquie aujourd’hui1- Fadime DELI et Jean-François PÉROUSE, Le tremblement de terre de Yalova-‹zmit-‹stanbul,

premiers éléments d’appréciation, ‹stanbul, décembre 1999, 40 p., 4 €.

2- Timour MUHIDINE, La littérature turque à l’aube du millénaire : 1999-2000, ‹stanbul, août 2000, 32 p., 4 €.

3- Gilles de RAPPER, Les Albanais à ‹stanbul, ‹stanbul, septembre 2000, 24 p., 3 €.

4- Jean-François PÉROUSE, La mégapole d’‹stanbul 1960-2000, Guide bibliographique, ‹stanbul, octobre 2000, 19 p., 3 €.

5- Bayram BALCI, avec la collaboration de Bertrand BUCHWALTER et les contributions de Ahmet Salih BIÇAKÇI, Habiba FATHI, Alexandre HUET, Arnaud RUFFIER et Johann UHRES, La Turquie en Asie centrale. La conversion au réalisme (1991-2000), ‹stanbul, janvier 2001, 107 p., 11 €.

6- Samim AKGÖNÜL, Vers une nouvelle donne dans les relations gréco-turques, ‹stanbul, avril 2001, 46 p., 5 €.

7- Jean-François PÉROUSE, Turquie : l’après-seismes, 52 p., ‹stanbul, août 2001, 6 €.

8- Sylvie GANGLOFF et Jean-François PEROUSE avec la collaboration de Thomas TANASE, La présenceroumaine à ‹stanbul. Une chronique de l’éphémère et de l’invisible, ‹stanbul, octobre 2001, 47 p., 5 €.

9- Fadime DELI avec la collaboration de Jean-François PÉROUSE, Migrations internes vers ‹stanbul: discours, sources et quelques réalités, ‹stanbul, juin 2002, 56 p., 7,5 €.

10- David BEHAR, Les Universités privées d’Istanbul, ‹stanbul, juin 2002, 44 p., 7,5 €.

11- Burcu GÜLTEK‹N, Les enjeux de l’ouverture de la frontière turco-arménienne. Les contacts transfrontaliers entre la Turquie et l’Arménie, ‹stanbul, octobre 2002, 56 p., 7,5 €.

12- Bertrand BUCHWALTER, Les relations turco-arméniennes : Quelles perspectives ? ‹stanbul, novembre 2002, 56 p., 7,5 €.

13- Paul DUMONT, Jean-François PÉROUSE, Stéphane de TAPIA, Samim AKGÖNÜL, Migrations et mobilités internationales : la plate-forme turque, ‹stanbul, novembre 2002, 104 p., 20 €.

14- Burcu GÜLTEK‹N, Atteindre la Caspienne. Les relations économiques entre la Turquie etl’Azerbaïdjan, ‹stanbul, juin 2003, 44 p., 7,5 €.

15- Élise MASSICARD, Les élections du 3 novembre 2002 : Une recomposition de la vie politique turque ?, ‹stanbul, juillet 2003, 52 p., 7,5 €.

16- Méropi ANASTASSIADOU et Paul DUMONT, Une mémoire pour la Ville : la communauté grecque d’Istanbul en 2003, ‹stanbul, août 2003, 60 p., 7,5 €.

17- Gilles DORRONSORO, La nébuleuse Hizbullah, ‹stanbul, mars 2004, 28 p., 7,5 €.

18- Didem DANIfi et Ebru KAYAALP, Elmada¤: A Neighborhood in Flux, ‹stanbul, mars 2004, 64 p., 7,5 €.

Les Dossiers de l’IFEA


63

série : patrimoines au présent1- Franck DORSO, Un espace indécis au cœur d’Istanbul. La muraille de Théodose II en 2001, ‹stanbul,

juin 2003, 40 p., 7,5 €.

2- Olivier HENRY, Considérer la mort : De la protection des tombes dans l’antiquité à leur conservation aujourd’hui, ‹stanbul, juillet 2003, 48 p., 7,5 €.

3- Damien BISCHOFF et Jean-François PÉROUSE, La question des barrages et du GAP dans le Sud-Est anatolien : patrimoines en danger ?, ‹stanbul, août 2003, 64 p., 7,5 €.

4- Martin GODON, Le Néolithique en Anatolie, un patrimoine archéologique aux origines de nos sociétésactuelles, ‹stanbul, mars 2004, 36 p., 7,5 €.

Documents

Elmada¤: A Neighborhood in Flux - IFEA-Istanbul · 2011-10-12 · [email protected] Site internet : ´ ´ Ce “dossier de l’IFEA” est un document de travail destiné à