Urban regeneration as a tool for growth in the 19th century Beyoğlu

Like many other commercial hubs of the 19th century, also Istanbul strived to reach a healthy urban infrastructure. In that respect, the urban regeneration of the prestigious Galata and Pera neighborhoods witnessed the foundation of the first municipality, the 6. Daire-i Belediyye. Numerous actors in and around the 6. Daire-i Belediyye, mostly with close ties to the ruling powers, contributed immensely to these changes. Leading to purely economic interests, the urban landscape itself turned into an investment tool. The foundation and the activities lead by the 6. Daire-i Belediyye in the 19th century can be assumed as the first systematic change of Istanbul's urban landscape. In order to understand this period - moreover, to even gain a better understanding of today's urban change - it seems to be highly beneficial to analyze the changes that were effected in the city and its management in that period. Certainly, it would be unfair to neglect international influences of the period. Equally, the long-proclaimed, romantic assumption that changes in the urban landscape were primarily and solely triggered by the desire to "Westernize" would also be misleading. It is a fact that exactly during this period, capitalism got widely accepted and obtained a strong foothold, eventually turning the city itself into a feasible tool for investment. On the other hand, many articles asking for a change in the urban landscape are written; mainly in newspapers publishing in foreign languages. Not only are these thoughts and wishes; in contrary, different ideas on the realization of these ideas are presented to the general public. There are practical ideas on mortgage laws, calls to prefer apartments to single-family houses or ways on how to deal with expropriations during the re-development of the Pera Avenue. Having the objective of analyzing these facts, this thesis is built around three pillars and their respective relationships: Values, Actors and Productions of the urban landscape of 19thcentury Istanbul and Beyoğlu. Values reflect impressions and facts that influenced the setup and decisions of actors. These are the centralist fundamentals of the Ottoman Empire; the fire being the major influencing power of the change; the need for a sterile city in order to lead the desired modern life; last, but not least, probably the most influential (but yet not widely proclaimed) fact is the increased importance of the utilitarianist attitude and the raw opportunism that follows this very mind-set. Actors are defined as the directors and the decisions around the urban production. As in all modern societies, these stakeholders are far-reaching hands of the ruling forces within the municipality, who are influencing laws and decrees; other stakeholders are constructors, landlords and property owners, as well as the general population and the media. Relationships between these actors are naturally very complex. Each actor owns more than one position; e.g. one real estate owner can easily be a member of the municipality, be an investor and also be a first consultant to the Sultan. Capitalism being the driving force and time being of essence, different actors pressuring other actors result in an ever faster turning pace. For example, architecture, focusing until very recently on highest quality and esthetics turns more into construction supervisory. "Special certifications" in hygiene is an interesting trend and practice available to modern architects. Productions are the changes that the Values and Executors have effected in the city. The idea of transforming the city into a new representation media, with all related partial plans and expropriations are certainly very important. Several historical happenings between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century do show major traits of these facts: The demolishment of the Galata Walls, the formation of the Tepebaşı Cemetary into a new city park and the Apartments of the Taksim Kışla and Talim Yeri. Each of these changes show how public spaces are transferred to private owners, benefitting individuals. Galata Walls and their corresponding ditches were demolished and parceled to be sold to investors; funds were used by the 6. Daire-i Belediyye to pay back debts. Tepebaşı Cemetary was used as a plot where excess soil extracted from the Tünel construction was piled. In later stages, the slowly vanishing cemetery turned into a point of discussion in the public with regards to hygiene fears. Finally, these factors led to the foundation of a public park on the grounds of the old cemetery. In contrast to the cemetery, the transformation of the Taksim Kışla and Talim Yeri into residential areas was far more radical and evident to the public. Not used by the military, different forces lead to the decision of turning this space into private, residential areas; rather than a public space. Special regulations were called into life in order to increase real estate stocks. In fact, similar approaches are still in use today. Real estate starts becoming very concentrated, empty spaces are hardly available. The struggle of the 19th century still prevails today in the 21st century: How to provide the landlord equal space and/or asset while decreasing the usable space per unit and hereby increasing its value? In terms of Foucault's theory: As long as the exchange-value of the space surpasses its use-value, actors will most certainly continue to define the building as an investment tool. In the thesis, special emphasis is given to the idea that change without economic benefit was (and still is…) not possible. Therefore, an almost routine cycle runs through the metropolis, touching regularly on real estate that yet needs to be turned into an economic source. The Taksim Kışlası is probably one of the most evident and recent example on this subject: To be turned into a residential area in the 19th century, this economic undertaking did not materialize. Serving the public as a park for more than half a century, discussions today are centered on the idea of turning the park into privately owned real estates. Should this idea materialize, the economic cycle will indeed be closed. In that respect, the Trilogy of Values, Actors and Productions is showcasing a cyclical model of the man-made, urban landscape. By that, all productions in fact do constitute the future values. Emphasizing the existence of such a cycle, the thesis aims also to take attention to the repetitive timeless pattern created with this trilogy, and recalls the possibility of making different researches on urban planning in history or today.