Transience and Permanence in Urban Development Workshop
Urban Voids of Istanbul: Outcomes and Challenges Brought on by the Use of Vacant
Lands and Buildings
Basak Tanulku
Abstract
Cities or parts of cities have been abandoned throughout history for different ecological,
socio-economic, political or sanitary reasons. Nowadays, from Detroit to Berlin, from
London to Istanbul, cities with such diverse history experience more radical transformation
particularly due to financial and real estate sectors. The recent urban transformation led to
privatisation, segregation and polarisation where publicly used urban spaces are transformed
into luxury shopping malls and exclusive housing developments. Cities have lost their
heritage, community life and green spaces while certain districts, public spaces and buildings
were abandoned and became “voids”.
These urban voids create debates in different fields such as architecture, urban planning and
human geography, in order to understand their effects in urban development and the tension
between their temporary and permanent uses. There are three main ways for reusing these
urban voids: First, they are converted into new retail, residential and business sites through
the investment of large capital. Second, they are made more lively, safe and useful through
the partnership of various stakeholders demonstrating the impact of participatory planning
that aims community engagement and urban development. Third, they are also converted into
new spaces through a bottom-up and more radical process of space making, such as urban
and/or guerrilla gardening and squatting of vacant buildings. As explained by Tonkiss, while
some of these radical initiatives can be regarded as providing temporary solutions and
having the potential of “saving” capitalism, these can also be regarded as experimental
spaces and/or communities and might be alternatives to neoliberal urbanisation (Tonkiss,
2013).
As expressed in the call for the Workshop “Transience and Permanence in Urban
Development”, there is a need to focus on a variety of factors in determining the use of urban
vacant sites which would also reveal the relation and tension between their transient and
permanent uses. In order to carry these debates forward, the paper will look at various forms
of urban voids. Instead of regarding urban voids as something to be fixed, the paper will look
at them as parts of cities, which become vacant as the result of different factors. By looking at
different forms of urban voids, the paper will indicate how they can lead to different outcomes
and have different impacts on urban development. By doing this the paper will also question
the relations between transient and permanent use of these sites, and various problems
emerging as the result of such uses. For this purpose, the paper will use the data collected
1
through field observation in several regions of Istanbul, the most populated city of Turkey,
and media search. The paper will look at five cases: first, three districts becoming abandoned
as the result of urban transformation, second, abandoned historic houses which became
ghostly homes, third, buildings squatted by the urban youth and intellectuals, fourth, newlybuilt buildings left vacant in inner city, and lastly, places and buildings regarded as vacant
due to their symbolic meaning in the Turkish society.
Keywords: different meanings of urban voids, temporary and permanent uses, urban
transformation, ruins, heritage, squatting, housing crisis, Istanbul
PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
Introduction
Urban Voids, Transience and Permanence: Examples from Different Countries
Cities or parts of cities have been abandoned throughout history for different
ecological, socio-economic, political reasons, such as natural disasters, wars, conflicts, bad
design, disputes over the ownership of the site, and health and safety reasons (epidemics) in
different parts of the world. Some examples are the decline in the number of rural pubs and
churches in England as the result of demographic changes and/or lifestyle preferences, wartorn places in Middle Eastern countries since the 1980s, Chernobyl, abandoned as a toxic
town and towns/cities deserted due to natural disasters. In addition to urban vacant sites/
buildings, at a broader scale, there are brown, green and grey field sites beyond the urban
scale, which are underused or left vacant for various reasons. More recently, as the result of
neoliberal restructuring through deindustrialisation, regeneration and gentrification cities with
such diverse history are changing rapidly since the late 1970s and early 1980s. This led to
cities characterised by privatisation, segregation and polarisation where publicly used urban
spaces are transformed into luxury shopping malls and exclusive housing developments.
Cities have lost their heritage, community life and green spaces while certain districts, public
spaces and buildings were abandoned, neglected and became “voids” among the living city.
However, during the last years, urban voids received more attention as a result of the
latest economic crisis and recession, leading to foreclosures, evictions and abandonment of
whole neighbourhoods or buildings and urban decay, particularly in the USA and various
2
European countries, from Detroit to Berlin and London (Colomb, 2012; Tonkiss, 2013). As
an example, some cities in post-socialist countries like Zagreb, the capital city of Croatia,
experienced an increase in the number of vacant shops in its centre as a result of the latest
economic crisis (Mucko, 2012). Its abandoned old town centre was aimed for being revived
by the initiatives of artists and activists through arts festivals and community events (Rimanic,
Hanacek and Kutlesa, 2012). In addition to economic crisis, changes in lifestyle and
demographic composition lead to general decline and an increase in the numbers of vacant
buildings, not only in inner city but also suburbs, such as the decline of conventional suburbia
in the case of the USA, as a result of various factors such as preference of less dependence on
commuting due to increasing oil prices and a wish to return to city life (Gallagher, 2013).
The challenges brought on by these voids create debates in different fields such as
architecture, urban planning and human geography in order to understand their role in urban
development (Bowman and Pagano, 2004; Mell, Keskin, Inch, Tait and Henneberry, 2013;
Nassauer, 2014; Parris, 2013). A major effort is spent to understand negative effects of these
sites on urban development and reduce the risks associated with them, such as crime,
bankruptcy, abandonment and a general urban decline. While the previous research regarded
“urban voids” as a negative result of particular processes such as deindustrialisation,
outmigration, changes in technology, gentrification, at the moment “urban voids” have
become a subject which can lead to urban development, as the result of the popularisation of
bottom-up, participatory and DIY approaches in urban studies. In this context, a literature is
growing on how to convert these vacant sites into useable and productive spaces i. Important
ways to reuse them are urban gardening, agriculture and various forms of community
initiatives (community centres, pop-up businesses) in order to provide something good for the
peopleii. There are also more radical uses of these urban voids such as guerrilla gardening and
or squatting. As explained by Tonkiss (2013), some thinkers regard these radical initiatives as
providing temporary solutions and having the potential of “saving” capitalism. However,
Tonkiss argues that these efforts can also be regarded as experimental spaces and
communities which can offer an alternative to neoliberal urbanisation (Tonkiss, 2013; 322). iii
Transience is an important debate on the use of these vacant buildings/lands until permanence
would prevail. Transience is seen as a tool to save empty or underused sites while it can also
lead to a permanent situation of transience in certain sites. An important aspect of “urban
voids” is the ways in which they are perceived, i.e. as something to be “filled” or “fixed”. In
this sense, the mainstream approach has a tendency towards “horror vacui” when interpreting
urban vacant sites/ buildings, i.e. the fear of “voids”. In the last years, there is another
3
interpretation of urban voids which does not perceive them as something to be filled or
demolished, but as an area to be explored. This is known as “urban exploration”, i.e.
exploring urban ruins or abandoned sites and buildings such as manor houses, industrial
complexes, subways, stations, hospitals and asylums, reminiscent of “favela/slum tourism”
that considers cities as jungles to be explored through “tourist gaze”iv.
In the context of Turkey, and more particularly, Istanbul, urban vacant lands and buildings
are not a very popular subject to study, while studies were conducted on abandonment,
memory and city in terms of non-Muslim communities who left Istanbul during the early
Republican era (Neyzi, 1999). The heritage of the city going back to thousands of years was
also analysed by well-known scholars writing on urban preservation and history (Kuban,
2010) as well as on the building stock demolished, called “ghost buildings”, which refers to
the declining or lost heritage of Istanbul, the capital city of Byzantium and then the Ottoman
Empiresv. Also, declining wooden houses of Istanbul were analysed in-depth in various
research studies particularly on their design (Gunay, 2014).
Related to squatting, Istanbul has lots of empty, derelict buildings all over the city as the
result of their inferior construction quality, disadvantaged locations or disputes on their
ownerships which prevent them to be used. While some of them are left empty to rot, some of
them are used by the homeless or as cheap residences through informal means. This is known
as “bekar odalari”, i.e. rooms let by single men who use these rooms while they work in the
city (similar to bedsits). This creates a state of permanent transience, i.e. there is a constant
flow of people moving in and out being replaced by newcomers. In addition, occupiers use
these buildings for a different reason from their primary function. This also leads to
continuous neglect of health and safety standards in these buildings and their surroundings.
Also informal housing of the working classes, called “gecekondu” has been a very popular
subject of investigation among urban sociologists. However, “urban voids” have never been a
subject of investigation. More attention is given to urban vacant lands and buildings in the last
years due to effect of various massive urban transformation projects in different parts of
Istanbul, as well as other cities of Turkey. Urban transformation has been explored from
different angles such as its consequences on local communities, economy and urban heritage
(Ingin and Islam, 2013; Iseri, 2014), while various forms of gentrification in different parts of
Istanbul were also widely discussed.vi Outside the academia, there are also efforts to explore
this subject particularly through exhibitions and documentaries.vii
4
As expressed in the call for the Workshop “Transience and Permanence in Urban
Development”, there is need to focus on a variety of factors in determining the use of urban
vacant lands and/or buildings which would also reveal the relation and tension between
shorter and longer term uses. In order to carry these debates forward, the paper will look at
various forms of urban vacant buildings and their role in urban life. The paper does not see
urban voids as something to be fixed and will not seek solutions to “fill” them. Rather, by
exploring various forms of voids and the ways in which they are used, the paper will also
question the relation and tension between temporary and permanent uses. For this purpose, the
paper will turn attention to Istanbul, the most populated city of Turkey, experiencing
continuous transformation through large-scale projects such as gated communities, luxury
mixed-use complexes, shopping malls, exhibition centres and various tourist attractions which
make the city a popular destination to study various urban processes among urban scholars.
First, the paper will provide information on Istanbul and then it will focus on various
meanings of urban voids in the context of the city. Then, it will explore various voids in
Istanbul and the ways in which they are used leading to conflicts in the use of ownership and
access, transience and permanence. For this purpose, the paper will use the data collected
through field observation in several parts of Istanbul and media research. First, the paper will
review vacant buildings as the result of various urban transformation projects, by looking at
Fikirtepe, a site now used as a filming location for Turkish movies, since it looks like a wartorn
no-name
Middle
Eastern
neighbourhood;
Sulukule,
a
well-known
Romani
neighbourhood, resettled by new migrants, refugees from the Syrian war and finally,
Tarlabasi, an old inner-city neighbourhood in decline which experienced increasing crime
rates as the result of transformation. Second, the paper will discuss various types of vacant
buildings left behind due to different reasons, such as historic houses, which are vacant due to
the “ghosts” inhabiting them; third, vacant buildings squatted by the urban youth and activists
for community benefit and fourth, newly-built business, retail and residential developments
which are left vacant due to some sort of crisis (economic, housing or design) and lastly,
vacant buildings, which are regarded as vacant due to their symbolic meaning in Turkish
society leading to their decline, abandonment and sometimes removal from urban memory.
5
Istanbul: Global City of Turkey with no “Vacancy”
Istanbul is one of the oldest cities of the world, going back to 8,500 years and the most
populated and densest city of Turkey. It can be regarded as the “global city” of the country,
where most of the economic activity takes place. Istanbul is a highly mobile city which
receives continuous flow of people from different parts of Turkey as well as from abroad. In
addition, Istanbul also has an important number of illegal immigrants (the latest wave is of
Syrian people escaping from the war in Syria) trying to find work or use Istanbul as
“transitory” site for their targeted destinations. At the same time, Istanbul comprises people
from diverse backgrounds in terms of class, ethnicity or religious affiliation living together. In
terms of labour market, it is a diverse city where people work in different sectors under
different work shifts (part-time, full-time, precarious and/or permanent jobs, as well as in
informal and/or illegal jobs) and as demonstrated in several studies (Sonmez, 1996) is
regarded to be among the most unequal cities in terms of income distribution in the world.
Istanbul can still be considered as a city of manufacturing and production particularly in the
sectors of construction, textile, food and chemicals (Sonmez, 1996). In addition, Istanbul’s
economy is changing in favour of service and particularly FIRE (finance, insurance, real
estate) sectors and knowledge and information technologies creating a city in their own
images, with their way of life around particular consumption habits.
Istanbul has experienced various forms and periods of abandonment during its long
history full of wars, conflicts, and demographic shifts. More recently, during the Republican
era since the 1920s, Istanbul has three major transformations which led to emergence of urban
voids and transiency: first, the gradual abandonment of non-Muslim communities as the result
of political turmoil and changes during the early Republican Era aiming at creating a
homogenous country based on a Turkish and Sunni Muslim identity. The buildings left from
them, located in the well-established and well-developed section of the city, started to be
occupied by Turkish people, coming from various parts of the country, indicating the second
important shift in Istanbul’s history.
This was immigration from rural areas towards the city from 1950s onwards as the
result of several factors: the introduction of mechanical technology into small-scale
agriculture which reduced the need for human labour in farming, animal husbandry and food
production; the increase in the overall rural population after the long war years and increasing
need for workforce for a growing industrial bourgeoisie concentrated in large cities of Turkey.
This led rural population to leave their homes and settle in the peripheries of large cities of the
6
country, including Istanbul (Kahraman, 2013). “Gecekondu” settlements, dwellings built
illegally by migrants on lands owned by the state or privately, emerged as a result. The
governments did not prevent the migrants to do so, since these settlements reduced the need
for investing in social housing for the future working classes (Danielson and Keles, 1985;
Kongar, 1998). The gecekondu settlements changed the urban landscape and culture. The
gecekondu areas have never been vacant but they offered transience in cities, since they
allowed continuous sprawl without regard for the rules of mass planning.
The third major shift started from 1970s onwards as an upper and middle class
phenomenon in the peripheries of Istanbul such as Silivri and Tuzla, experiencing the
construction of second (or holiday) homes, which was also seen in the western and southern
coasts of the country. Although they are analysed within the “formal” housing market, they
contribute to transience since they are used temporarily/ seasonally encouraging further
sprawl towards exurban lands reserved for agriculture. In addition, some summer resorts were
built next to heritage/historic sites which led to their damage. These homes are also used
transient since they are used by different people at the same time, leading to various disputes
between their users.
However, the massive transformation of Istanbul’s landscape started during the early
1980s, an era of introduction of neoliberal economic policies and the gradual desertion of
mass urban planning (Balaban, 2013). Construction emerged as one of the biggest economic
sectors to generate profit due to the changing meaning of urban land into rent in the high
inflationary economy (Oncu, 1988; Sonmez, 1996). The development of the construction
sector did not only depend on the economic policies of that era. In addition, the relatively
stable condition of Turkey among other Middle Eastern countries facing internal turmoil
during that era also led large developers, previously working in the Middle Eastern countries,
to invest in the domestic construction sector. Starting from the 1980s, Istanbul was regarded
as a “global city” by local political actors and as an important centre in the Middle East, the
Balkans and the Black Sea countries (Keyder, 2000) viii.
For political actors, Istanbul is the perfect global city of Turkey which would generate
profit through real estate development and comprise new residential developments, five-star
hotels, business districts, and shopping malls (Sonmez, 1996; Kozanoglu, 1993). The new
housing and real estate sector led by large developers replaced the old one dominated by small
construction firms providing housing for the lower and middle classes (Oncu, 1988). The new
7
urban space became populated with multi-storeys built nearby central business districts,
shopping malls in all over the city, exhibition and art centres close to gentrified districts
inhabited by well-off intellectuals and gated communities built in outskirts. Istanbul also
houses the principal stock market of Turkey, as well as the headquarters of various wellknown international and national companies. As shown by Enlil, it hosts most of foreign
companies in service sector and foreign companies in finance and banking sectors (2003). It
can also be regarded as the cultural capital city of Turkey due to its rich leisure, creative and
knowledge sectors (Islam, 2006) which also contains headquarters of newspapers, and
restaurants bringing taste of different countries (Keyder, 2000). It is the most important centre
of secondary and higher education of Turkey and has a large population of higher education
graduates.
As argued by Oktem, Istanbul has been shaped by the policies of different political
parties. However, despite their ideological differences, their main aim was to transform
Istanbul into a “global city” (2005). Istanbul of the 2000s is no different: It is promoted as the
global and brand city of Turkey, and regarded as becoming more Islamised due to the policies
of the ruling party of the last decade the Justice and Development Party (Eraydin, and Tasan
Kok, 2014). At the present, in terms of landscape and built environment, Istanbul is changing
rapidly due to the massive urban transformation projects as the result of the importance
assigned to the real estate sector under the policies of the ruling party which aims at
transforming Istanbul into a replica of the old Ottoman capital for targeting the Muslim
majority of Turkey and Muslim tourists coming from particularly the Middle Eastern
countries ix.
At the moment, Istanbul does not have a lot of urban land left for development. The
real estate sector generates land through two methods which cause different tensions: the first
is done through either damaging the remaining environmental sources and attractions or
changing the urban topography through land filling or opening canals, a process started during
the Ottoman era particularly on the Bosporus in order to create space for roads. The second
method is urban regeneration, and/or gentrification achieved through wholesale destruction
and eviction of neighbourhoods, and constructing new ones, which are marketed through the
discourses of innovation and modernism, opposed to the old and authentic fabric of the city,
seen as backward and dirty. The city’s inner neighbourhoods, topography and heritage are
under threat of various projects while local people are forced to leave their homes, leading to
partial evictions of certain neighbourhoods. Urban transformation is also justified by the
8
threat of strong earthquakes used as an excuse, particularly after the 1999 Marmara
Earthquake which destroyed small towns and summer resorts nearby Istanbul and took lives
of more than 30,000 people. Since then, all new housing developments built both by private
and public bodies are promoted to be resistant to potential earthquakes. Any inner city
neighbourhood with valuable building stock is labelled to be vulnerable against earthquake,
and the state confiscates lands and homes of people in order to demolish them and convert the
area available for development, which was accepted as a law in 2012 as “Law on
Transformation of Areas under Disaster Risk (Law no 6306)” x.
Different Forms of Urban Voids in Istanbul
The paper will now give examples of actual and symbolic voids from different parts of
the city. Istanbul has lots of ruins, old industrial complexes, newly built vacant housing,
residential and business developments. In addition to built environment, Istanbul has also
vacant lands such as plots left between occupied buildings, or lands emerging as the result of
demolition or fires. These lands are used by locals alternatively for gardening, beekeeping,
and animal husbandry or sites for waste. They are either used temporarily or converted into
permanent sites, or left to their destiny. In terms of ownership, they are either owned by
privately (single or multiple owners) or by the state. The paper will focus on five types of
“urban voids” and the ways in which they are used.
1. Vacant Neighbourhoods as the Result of Urban Transformation
The most important way to create urban void is transforming certain areas particularly in
inner districts of Istanbul inhabited mainly by the urban poor, and/ or ethnic and religious
minorities, illegal migrants, and migrants coming from different parts of Turkey. This
transformation leads to evictions and abandonment to convert these areas into new residential,
retail or business sites. They experience a permanent state of emptiness and transience while
their residents live under continuous threat of theft, detachment, and pressure from developers
and/or state to leave their homes. These neighbourhoods are usually stigmatised due to their
inhabitants who are associated with various forms of illegal/informal activities. This sociospatial stigma also justifies a need to purify these places from their inhabitants. Urban
transformation is led by the state which confiscates houses and lands to sell them through
9
open auctions to the highest bidder (a single developer or a consortium of developers,
consisting of several private and/or public bodies) which would invest in and convert the area.
Another rationale behind this transformation is the belief that it would bring new job
opportunities to the area. The removal of the built environment, evictions of locals and
negotiation between different actors (locals and developers) is a long process which leads to
the emergence of voids among occupied buildings and a continuous condition of transience
resulting in an increase in crime rates due to loss of social control mechanisms of the locals
who abandoned the areas. This also leads to temporary use of these buildings until the project
by developers would be finished. The paper will focus on three inner city districts of Istanbul,
Fikirtepe, Sulukule, and Tarlabasi all inhabited by the urban poor although the demographic
composition is quite different in each.
Case 1: Fikirtepe
Fikirtepe is a neighbourhood on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, sprawled since the
1950s when large number of migrants arrived from various parts of the country to settle in
Istanbul and became the future working classes. Fikirtepe consists of mainly informal and
illegal housing built on lands once owned by the state. In this sense, it exhibits a very
conventional development of the “gecekondu” phenomenon. While Fikirtepe’s residential
history does not go back too long, it has a particular significance in the history and heritage of
Istanbul: it harbours an important Neolithic settlement, named “Fikirtepe Hoyugu” (Fikirtepe
Cairn), going back to 6,500 BC. Once the state decreed the area to be demolished and
replaced by new building stock, local people reacted to this decree by the help of activists
since the new housing project would be far more expensive than they could afford. They also
did not want to leave their homes and neighbourhood, which were located in a relatively
advantaged location in central Istanbul. The activists had other concerns: the proposed project
does not show respect to the heritage of the site. During this long process of negotiation and
indecisiveness, some movie companies turned the condition of Fikirtepe into an advantage by
starting filming in the area, particularly scenes passing in the Middle East: Fikirtepe, once a
poor but established working class neighbourhood, now looked like a place from the war-torn
Middle East. In addition, the area experienced significant increase in crime due to the
abandonment of the area by the locals and increase in vacant buildings. The dispute over
Fikirtepe still continues, and the future of the neighbourhood is not known.
Case 2: Sulukule
10
Sulukule is an old district on the historic peninsula of the city, inhabited by the Romani
people since the last 1,000 years, who were thought to migrate from the Indian subcontinent.
During the Ottoman Empire, Romani people settled there and were employed in the music
and entertainment sector of the capital city. After the advent of the Turkish Republic during
the 1920s, the area retained its identity. However, since the 2000s, under the rule of the
government led by the Justice and Development Party, similar to other historic and working
class areas of Istanbul, Sulukule received attention of the developers. During the last years,
Sulukule experienced partial demolition and evictions. This project was heavily criticised by
activists, planners and locals, who formed a hip hop group to express their concerns about
Sulukule. As the result of continuing negotiation and disputes between the locals and
developers, and the low level of house sales, the newly built but vacant homes are used by
immigrants escaping from Syria and settled there by the help of the government.
Case 3: Tarlabasi
Tarlabasi is another site under transformation near the popular destinations of Beyoglu,
Taksim and Galata on the European side of central Istanbul. This side of the city symbolises
Western culture, since they were inhabited by the non-Muslim minorities (Christians, Jewish)
during the Ottoman Empire who mainly dealt with trade and banking. The area experienced
radical changes during the Republican era, since the minorities left Turkey as the result of
political changes aiming at establishing national state and identity. Their abandoned homes
were occupied by Muslim immigrants coming from Anatolia from 1950s onwards, becoming
the urban working classes. However, the 1980s became a turning point for the area as the
result of above mentioned political, economic and ideological context of that era, aiming at
transforming Istanbul into a global city. Various parts of Istanbul experienced gentrification
and Taksim and Beyoglu were among the most important “windows” of gentrification in the
city: These areas, which were in decline since the 1950s, became revived through the opening
of bookshops, cafes, restaurants, night clubs, and other shops of various creative sectors while
the old building stock from the 18th and late 19th centuries became renovated and turned into
residences of the intelligentsia.
On the contrary, Tarlabasi did not receive the attention of various subsequent governments
of the 1980s and 1990s, due to the construction of Tarlabasi Boulevard isolating the area from
Taksim and its relatively stigmatised reputation because of various forms of criminal
11
activities taking place there. The 1990s and 2000s experienced immigration in waves
particularly coming from the South East of Turkey as a result of the internal conflict between
Kurdish people and the state. The 2000s became another turning point for the area, when the
state begun to express its wish to transform the area, leading to evictions, abandonment, and
an increase in the number of vacant or derelict buildings. At the moment, some parts of the
area, abandoned and demolished, are under construction, while the rest is experiencing a
general decline, both spatially and socially. This situation in Tarlabasi led to increasing
problems, and the future of the area is unknown.
Various parts of Tarlabasi in 2014 (photos taken by the author)
12
2. The Urban Ruins Inhabited by Ghosts
The second form of void in Istanbul are ruins which are considered as heritage of the city:
these ruins range from ancient manor houses to castles and city walls, which are
spontaneously protected by people, instead of the initiatives of state or other professional
institutions. These sites are generally under threat of damage or vandalism, while they are also
aimed to be converted into spaces for profit instead of being kept as public spaces reserved for
recreation and heritage. Istanbul has many ruins in its real sense, i.e. derelict buildings which
can be regarded under the category of urban heritage, since they reflect all the characteristics
of a particular architectural style and/or were built by a well-known architect. However, due
to the disputes between their owners, inheritors or sometimes between local administrators,
most of them are left in a state of despair. Some ruins are used by illegal immigrants or
homeless for shelter, such as the walls surrounding the historic peninsula of Istanbul,
sometimes being the scene for various crimes, as drug use. However, some ruins are not used
by anyone even if they have advantageous locations and are in good condition. As example,
some old manor houses built for the Ottoman elite such as army officers, members of the
Sultans’ harem or anyone from the palace circle are vacant since people believe that these are
inhabited by ghosts. These houses became legendary in their neighbourhoods and stories are
transferred from generation to the next, strengthening the local history, memory and identity,
in a city said to lose its valuable heritage at an unprecedented rate. These stories range from
spontaneous fires to stoning from outside, and voices and rumours heard all over the house,
which make people inside them nervous.
Case: The haunted house on the hill: from an urban void into an administrative centre
A famous house which was rumoured to be inhabited by ghosts is now occupied by a
developer company and used as its administrative centrexi. The building is on the Anatolian
side of Bosporus, in a location where the most expensive houses of Istanbul and Turkey are
found due to its association with Ottoman aristocracy and later Republican elites and its
beautiful topography, combining a view of the sea and wooded hills enhanced by an old built
environment. Bosporus is a natural channel which cuts Istanbul into half, the European and
Asian sides. Both sides of Bosporus are full with “yali”s, i.e. houses built near the sea while
13
its wooded hills host large mansions (“kosk”s), overlooking the straits from above. Although
Bosporus is changing in terms of the ownership and design of houses due to the rivalry
between the old and the new rich, it still retains its status among other expensive locations in
Istanbul. Alongside homes for the rich, Bosporus consists of small fishing villages going back
to pre-Ottoman times, even to Byzantium period. As a result of this, although the
demographic profile is quite homogenous in terms of religious affiliation, the villages across
Bosporus still have a mixed built environment left from Christians as well as Ottomans. In
addition, as Istanbul received immigration since the 1950s onwards, its population is quite
heterogeneous, since there are people from all over the country bringing their own cultures to
Istanbul.
The
“Cemil
Molla
Kosk”,
photograph
http://www.envanter.gov.tr/anit/index/detay/49552
taken
from
the
web
site
The house, called “Cemil Molla Kosk” is located on the woody hills of Kuzguncuk. Its
history goes back to the 19th century, when an important Ottoman Pasha built it for his family
(Baraz, 1993). The house, built in a mixed of European and Ottoman style, had the first
network of electricity, central heating and telephone, outside the Ottoman Palace xii. It was
occupied by the family for a long time and hosted political and intellectual debates. The Pasha
also built a small mosque near the sea and the area was deeply marked by the identity of this
14
family. However, the family turned the house over to state due to their internal problems xiii.
The house was left empty for almost 40 years, since it was thought to be inhabited by the
ghosts of the family who did not want to leave their homes; all members lie in the family
grave in the cemetery nearby. Lately, when the developer wanted to renovate the house during
the 2000s, the workers did not want to work inside the house due to the voices heard all over.
For now, the house is occupied and well-kept by the company. More generally, haunted
houses can experience a decline in their market prices as the result of the length of time they
are kept empty, while they increase the symbolic value of their surroundings. This can attract
investors to buy these houses at lower prices and convert them into well-kept or profitable
sites.
3. Vacant Buildings Squatted by Activists
Urban voids come also through several processes: economic crisis, changes in or disputes
over ownership, and demographic and lifestyle changes. Some of these voids, particularly
found in inner city are squatted. Although squatting in vacant buildings has been going on for
generations in Turkey, a new form of squatting is taking place in different locations of
Istanbul. This is done by the urban activists, something started after the Gezi protests in the
summer of 2013, reminiscent of Occupy Wall Street. The protests started as a protest camp in
the centre of Gezi Park in order to prevent its transformation into a commercial complex.
After the protests waned, some urban activists wanted to survive the spirit of these protests,
through the “mahalle forums”, i.e. open neighbourhood forums organised like an agora in
different locations of Istanbul and some Anatolian cities. During the winter of 2013, some
houses were squatted by activists in Kadikoy area, which is known by its educated, middleclass inhabitants adopting a secular and westernised way of life, in contrast to the city’s
peripheries dominated by the urban poor voting for right-wing political parties.
Case 1: Kadikoy
The first is called “Don Kisot Sosyal Merkezi” (Don Quixote Social Centre) xiv squatted
in the autumn of 2013 in Yeldegirmeni, an old neighbourhood, and the second is “Caferaga
Mahalle Evi” (Caferaga Neighbourhood House), located in central Kadikoy’s shopping area,
squatted around the same time. Both buildings were occupied by activists and used for similar
purposes: a place for coming together, exchanging ideas particularly about the problems of
15
neighbourhoods and communities, cooking together, and engaging in artistic initiatives
(theatre, performances, poems, music). While the first one still survives, the “Caferaga
Neighbourhood House” was closed down by the police in December 2014, since the occupied
building belonged to state authorities. While police cleared out the house, activists and artists
protested against the eviction by street performances. This latest intervention by the police
indicates different values attached to occupants/squatters of vacant buildings: while
governments let immigrants to build anything they like on state-owned lands since they are
seen as potential voters for them and cheap labour for the business, any building occupied by
intellectuals converted into community space (for creative activities) is seen as threatening
and unnecessary.
The different facades of the Don Quixote Social Centre, in Kadikoy (photos taken by the
author)
Case 2: Besiktas
16
A beautiful but empty and rotted house in the middle of Besiktas was targeted to be
occupied by a group of activists in March 2014. Besiktas is a very busy inner city
neighbourhood on the European side of the city, with a rich permanent market where various
food shops, boutiques, craftsmen, fishermen, jewellers, and book shops can be found.
However, activists were prevented by the police and local traders. This also indicates the
irrelevancy of “activists” in the eyes of ordinary people, even if they live in an old,
established neighbourhood like Besiktas, known for its secular, educated and middle-class
inhabitants and it’s “Carsi”, a group of soccer fans mostly composed of local tradesmen. Carsi
members are known for their social service projects as well as their anarchist and/or
communist slogans during the matches of the Besiktas football club, one of the principal three
clubs of Turkey.
The future of these squatted houses is unknown: it can encourage further squatting in
different parts of Istanbul, a city full of empty buildings ready to be occupied for “creative”
(arts, crafts and intellectual) purposes. As argued by Tonkiss, while these forms of radical use
can “save” capitalism, they can also encourage experimental or alternative lifestyles (2013). If
they survive, these kinds of squatting can also lead to alternative forms of living, reminiscent
of the experiences of Christiania in Copenhagen or Metelkova in Ljubljana, both old military
sites squatted by activists, intellectuals and youth and used for creative initiatives. These
initiatives, if would be extended to all over the city or different sites, can be evolved into a
real alternative based on a new economic rationale and a new lifestyle based on altruistic
values as a result of community activity and engagement.
However, this can only take place in a transient way, since the squatters can change over
time. In addition, the squatters can also live temporary lives, i.e. they can be full-time students
or white collars in their formal lives while acting as part-time urban activists in their squatted
arenas, trying to make something good for their neighbourhoods and their personal wellbeing. The squatters can also be removed, due to the top-down pressures of the state aiming to
convert these homes into profitable sites and due to the bottom-up pressures of local people.
Ironically, although that kind of squatting is not liked by the locals, developers and state
forces, it can “save” the area and empty buildings until when developers would find
opportunity to transform the area. In this respect, this kind of intellectual squatting can be the
first steps towards gentrification which can increase the rent value of the area or the buildings,
occupied by educated urban activists looking after the building, their communities and the
overall area.
17
4. New and Vacant Building Stock
There are also newly built residential, retail and business complexes which are left
vacant as the result of economic crises or failure in the market, or their design, disadvantaged
locations or rivalries and proximities between similar complexes which prevent them to be
sold and/or used. These buildings are constructed through the partnership between several
large developer companies which also cooperate with public bodies. They are marketed
through advertisement campaigns using celebrities who buy these properties. An important
group of owners of these buildings do not use these properties permanently but occasionally
or buy them for investment. However, one major problem with them is the potential bubble
leading into a housing crash and decline in overall housing value. In addition, while old
vacant buildings are usually occupied by homeless, illegal immigrants or activists, these
newly-built buildings cannot be occupied, as they are located in central business or shopping
districts and are protected by security guards, preventing their transient use. However, there
are alternative ways of using these kinds of buildings, such as using their facades as billboards
for advertisementsxv. In addition, they can lead to safety concerns among people who live
nearby them, particularly when there are large numbers of vacant buildings inside a closed
housing development (gated community or a commercial complex) threatening inhabitants as
a result of continuous emptiness. The under-occupancy of these buildings might also lead to
under-use of facilities, leading to either removal of these facilities or need of new clients from
the outside of these properties. There are several examples for this in Istanbul: Tat Towers, a
multi-storey building located in central business district on the European side of the city,
which has been vacant for the last 20 years due to its long construction process and disputes
between its inheritors preventing it to be occupied and/or used. The building is still vacant
leading to its decay and since it was not used by anyone during this period, it is a dead
investment.
5. Symbolic Voids as the Result of Ideological and Economic Context
The symbolic void refers to any land, building or neighbourhood neglected due to its
symbolic meaning in that particular social context. In this sense, an old building which can be
regarded among the city’s heritage is seen as nothing more than stone and bricks, and as
something to be removed from the city’s memory. There are various forms of this symbolic
18
void, for different reasons. First, in Istanbul any vacant site or building is seen as something to
be fixed, since they are seen as an obstacle for development, progress and profit and as
dysfunctional and unnecessary. In addition, due to the rise of the profit mentality particularly
since the 1980s, as explained previously, urban space became a source of profit (rent) and
considered as an absolute “vacant” site to be filled to make money. So, in the context of
Turkey, for a building to be considered vacant, the building should be regarded as
unnecessary: even if it has historic value, it can be demolished for profit. This mentality goes
beyond the building stock. As example, some sites, such as forests and natural resources are
seen as “assets” to be converted into rent through housing and shopping facilities, roads or
highways, due to the dominant mentality which regards everything as source of profit.
Another reason for the neglect of urban heritage sites is the priority given to novelty
(technology and innovation). In this context, an old building is seen as backward, dirty, and
old which should be replaced by something new (like shopping malls) which connotes
modernity and development. A site or building may also be regarded as symbolically “vacant”
due to the political and ideological context that sees them as sites to be demolished, removed
or simply forgotten or neglected. Combined with the ideology of neoliberalism and a
disregard towards the old and non-Muslim heritage, Istanbul is facing massive destruction of
the old urban texture and natural resources in the name of development and money. So,
functionalism is crucial for Istanbul where anything seen as unnecessary (for the
market/profit) or anything empty should be either demolished or be reclaimed for the market
and profit purposes, leaving no empty place in the city (emptiness in its actual sense).
Case: Ataturk Cultural Centre
In Istanbul there are some well-known examples for “symbolic” voids, both due to
economic and ideological context. A prime example for this is the Ataturk Cultural Centre,
built in a modernist style at the end of the 1960s, for high-art performances before its closure
in 2008 by state officials in order to renovate the building. In 2013 it was aimed to be totally
demolished and be replaced with a baroque-style mixed-use building, bringing together
shopping and art events under its roof. The main rationale behind its closure was the
government’s hatred towards high-art since it symbolises western (and non-Muslim art) and
secularism crystallised in its name “Ataturk”, the founder of Turkish Republic, seen as
someone who damaged the old, peaceful life based on Islamic tradition during the Ottoman
19
Empire. However, their plan was criticised by urban planners, architects, historians and
activists who think that this new project would destroy the identity of the Cultural Centre and
that of the location where it was built, Taksim Square, the famous site where the Gezi Protests
started in 2013. The Taksim Square is the heart of Istanbul, rooted in Republican ideals and
leftist political activism, located in an area known as the “western” part of the city. While the
government wants to destroy the square that idealises everything they are against (western,
secular and leftist), activists and ordinary people came together around the Gezi Park, another
neglected and forgotten public park in the middle of Istanbul to protect the park and the
square from being converted into a commercial complex. The future of the Centre is
unknown: it can be removed from the memory of Istanbulites soon by an accident, usual fate
of these kinds of sites, which would demolish it to build a complex for profit and
consumption. This would also destroy its identity of being a centre reserved for only art
performances.
Ataturk Cultural Centre, left vacant since 2008 (photo taken by the author).
20
Conclusion
Instead of seeing “void” as something to be fixed and filled, the paper regards it as a
part of the urban space, change and development, not only economically but also socioculturally, ranging from sites for urban transformation, cheap residences, hub for criminal
activities, community initiatives, urban gardening, sources of profit acting as billboards and
movie locations, sites for ghosts and urban legends, and inspiration for urban exploration as
well as first steps towards gentrification. For this purpose, the paper discussed various forms
of “urban voids” in the context of Istanbul (Turkey), and how they are used by different
actors, through field observation in various locations of Istanbul and media search: these are
urban voids emerging as the result of urban transformation, urban ruins, vacant old buildings,
newly-built luxury complexes, and lastly, symbolic voids all of which contribute to the urban
life, change and development.
The paper indicates the complexity of urban voids, rather than taking them as being
empty slots to be filled and fixed: this complexity also covers their meanings, uses and their
relationship with urban development. As seen in above examples, urban voids are seen as a
positive or negative feature of the urban space, depending on the context: first, it is regarded
as a positive aspect of the city, which provides people with breathing spaces such as squatted
buildings, public parks or any space between buildings reducing urban density. Second, void
is regarded as something to be avoided since it refers to danger and various forms of crime
(prostitution, drugs and homicide). Related to that, void also refers to economic decline and
the lack of investment. In addition, there are two kinds of “voids”: actual and symbolic ones:
While “actual void” refers to physical vacancy (buildings/lands, regardless of their status of
ownership), the “symbolic void” refers to lands or buildings which are regarded as “vacant”
and seen to be removed from urban space and memory to be replaced by something new, due
to the cultural, ideological or economic context. As a result of the current ideological and
cultural context, at the present there is “horror vacui” in Istanbul, i.e. the fear of the void
(and/or dysfunction) which aims at filling all empty sites, lands or buildings (actual or
symbolic) with something new and profitable. For Istanbul, a city waiting its demise through
a strong earthquake, having sufficient amount of empty space is crucial, which will be used as
an open space during an earthquake (or any disaster like a house fire). Ironically, while the
threat of an earthquake is used as an excuse to demolish old inner city neighbourhoods, no
attention is paid to provide Istanbulites with sufficient space as shelter in case of disasters.
21
In terms of transience, the same “urban void” can be used by different people in
different shifts and for different purposes, while some sites can experience a permanent state
of transiency. The voids in Istanbul also indicate problems emerging between their owners
and users (developers, state and locals and squatters), leading to a continuous state of
transiency. While the transient occupation of voids can lead to problems between their users
and owners, it can also add value to the vacant site, since it prevents them from being rotten
which can attract additional investment by acting like a hub in the neighbourhood. The future
of urban voids is uncertain: while some might lead to housing bubble and urban decay, some
might be fixed and filled by different actors, through formal and informal means. While some
might open possibilities for experimental and alternative lifestyles and might act as breathing
spaces, some might stay vacant as they are occupied by ghosts, which provide the city with an
identity and stories to tell.
References
Balaban, O. (2013) Neoliberal yeniden yapilanmanin Turkiye kentlesmesine bir diger
armagani: Kentsel donusumde guncelin gerisinde kalmak (Another Gift of Neoliberal
Restructuring to the Urbanisation in Turkey: Remaining Backwards in Urban
Transformation), in Istanbul: Mustesna Sehrin Istisna Hali (Istanbul: Exceptional State of an
Exceptional City), Cavdar, A. and Tan, P. (eds.), Istanbul: Sel Yayinevi, pp. 49-78.
Baraz, M. R. H. (1994) Beylerbeyi: Tesrifat Meraklisi Beyzade Takiminin Oturdugu bir Semt
(Beylerbeyi: A District Inhabited by a Team of Ceremonial Enthusiast Beyzade), Istanbul:
Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediyesi Kultur Isleri Daire Baskanligi.
Bowman, A. and Pagano, M. (2004) Terra Incognita: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies,
Georgetown University Press.
Colomb, C. (2012) Pushing the Urban Frontier: Temporary Uses of Space, City Marketing,
and The Creative City Discourse in 2000s Berlin, Journal of Urban Affairs, 34 (2), pp. 131–
152.
Danielson, M. and Keles, R. (1985) Politics of Rapid Urbanization: Government and Growth
in Modern Turkey, New York: Holmes& Meier.
Enlil, Z. M. (2003) 1980 Sonrasi Istanbul'da Toplumsal Ayrismanin Mekansal Izdusumleri
(The Spatial Manifestations of Social Segregation in Post 1980’s Istanbul), Mimar.ist, 8, pp.
84-89.
Eraydin, A. and Tasan Kok, T (2014) State Response to Contemporary Urban Movements in
Turkey: A Critical Overview of State Entrepreneurialism and Authoritarian Interventions,
Antipode, 46 (1), pp. 110–129.
22
Gallagher, L. (2013) The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving, New
York: Penguin.
Gunay, R. (2014) Istanbul'un Kaybolan Ahşap Konutları (The Lost Wooden Houses of
Istanbul), Istanbul: Yapi Endustri Dizisi Yayinlari Mimarlik Dizisi.
Ingin, A. K. and Islam, T. (2013) Bir Roman Mahallesinin Yeniden Tanzim Edilmesi (The
Reordering of a Romany Neighbourhood), in Istanbul: Mustesna Sehrin Istisna Hali
(Istanbul: Exceptional State of an Exceptional City), in Cavdar, A. and Tan, P. (eds.),
Istanbul: Nota Bene, pp. 167-175.
Iseri, G. (2014) Atesin ve Surgunun Golgesinde: Kentsel Donusum (In the Shadow of Fire
and Exile: Urban Transformation), Ankara: Nota Bene.
Islam, T. (2006) Merkezin Disinda: Istanbul'da Soylulastirma (Outside the Core:
Gentrification in Istanbul), in Istanbul'da “Soylulastirma”: Eski Kentin Yeni Sahipleri
(Gentrification in Istanbul: The New Inhabitants of the Old City), Behar, D. and Islam, T.
(eds.), Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlari, pp. 43-58.
Kahraman, T. (2013) Kent hukukunun yeni yuzu: duzenleyici devletten seckinlestirici devlete
(The New Face of Urban Law: From Regulator State to a Gentrifier State), in Istanbul:
Mustesna Sehrin Istisna Hali (Istanbul: Exceptional State of an Exceptional City), Cavdar, A.
and Tan, P. (eds.), Istanbul: Sel Yayinevi, pp. 17-48.
Keyder, C. (2000) Arka Plan (The Setting), in Istanbul Kuresel ile Yerel Arasinda, Keyder, C.
(ed.), Istanbul: Metis, pp. 9-40.
Kongar, E. (1998) 21. Yuzyilda Turkiye (Turkey in the 21st Century), Ankara: Remzi Kitabevi.
Kozanoglu, H. (1993) Yuppieler, Prensler ve Bizim Kuşak (Yuppies, Princes and Our
Generation), 3rd edition, Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari.
Kuban, D. (2010) Istanbul: an Urban History, Istanbul: Is Bankasi Kultur Yayinlari.
Mucko, B. (2012) Zagreb’s Empty Shop Windows and Transition Flaneurs, in Critical Cities
Volume 3: Ideas, Knowledge and Agitation from Emerging Urbanists, Deepa, N. and
Oldfield, T. (eds.), This Is Not A Gateway, London: Myrdle Court Press, pp. 101-109.
Nassauer, J.I. (2014) The rise of urban vacant property in America is both a fiscal challenge
and a design and planning opportunity, September 2014.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/09/04/the-rise-of-vacant-urban-property-in-america-isboth-a-fiscal-challenge-and-a-design-and-planning-opportunity/
Neyzi, L. (1999). Istanbul’da Hatirlamak ve Unutmak (Remembering and Forgetting in
Istanbul), Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari.
Rimanic, M., Hanacek, I, and Kutlesa, A. (2012) (Im) possible Alternatives: Reclaiming the
Public Space of Zagreb’s Upper Town, in Critical Cities Volume 3: Ideas, Knowledge and
Agitation from Emerging Urbanists, Deepa, N. and Oldfield, T. (eds.), This Is Not A
Gateway, London: Myrdle Court Press, pp. 332-346.
23
Mell, I. Keskin, B., Inch, A., Malcolm, T. and Henneberry, J. (2013) Stimulating Enterprising
Environments for Development and Sustainability (SEEDS) Conceptual framework for
assessing policy relating to vacant and derelict urban sites, SEEDS Work Package 3.1.1.1,
Department of Town & Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, January 2013.
Oktem, B. (2005) Kuresel Kent Soyleminin Kentsel Mekani Donusturmedeki Rolu (The Role
of the Discourse of the “Global City” in Transforming The Urban Space), in: Istanbul'da
Kentsel Ayrisma (Spatial Segregation in Istanbul) Kurtulus, H. (ed.), Istanbul: Baglam
Yayincilik, pp. 25-76.
Oncu, A. (1988) The Politics of the Urban Land Market in Turkey: 1950-1980, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 12 (1), 38-64.
Parris, S. (2013) Temporary Use Practice Part 1: Conceptualisation of Practice, Department of
Town and Regional Planning, The University of Sheffield.
Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edition, Princeton; N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Sonmez, M. (1996) Istanbul'un Iki Yuzu 1980’den 2000’e Değişim (Two Faces of Istanbul:
Transformation from 1980 to 2000), Ankara: Arkadas Yayinevi.
Tonkiss, F. (2013) Austerity Urbanism and the Makeshift City, City, 17 (3), pp. 312-324.
i
http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-andecological-benefits/
ii
In this context, the role of creative sectors is important in reviving these urban vacant lands and buildings. The
design and architecture are used to convert these sites into more usableplaces. As example the website
http://errands.gr/ is dedicated to revive forgotten places and buildings, based in Athens.
Aristide Antonas is an architect who redesigns abandoned places and buildings, including abandoned vehicles,
titled “KEG Apartment” http://www.aristideantonas.com/tag/archaeologies/project/keg-apartment
iii
http://en.squat.net/ a website dedicated to different forms of squatting from all over the world.
iv
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/
http://www.theurbanexplorer.co.uk/
v
An exhibition was held in Istanbul in 2010 on “ghost buildings”, i.e. buildings which were demolished from
Istanbul’s space and memory http://www.hayal-et.org/i.php/site/bilgi_info
vi
One of the first books written on various forms of gentrification in Istanbul is “Istanbul’da Soylulastirma: Eski
Kentin Yeni Sahipleri” (Gentrification in Istanbul: The New Inhabitants of the Old City), Islam, T. and Behar, D.
(eds.), 2006, Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
vii
In the last years, several exhibitions were dedicated to Istanbul. As example, the latest Istanbul Biennale was
titled “Mom Am I a Barbarian?” (2013) and reserved for urban transformation and its consequences on urban life
and communities. There are a few more which deserve to be mentioned here: “Cemetery of Architects” (Tayfun
Serttas, 2014, in Studio-X, Istanbul), the first Design Biennale (2012) titled “Adhocracy” in Istanbul. There are
also group photography exhibitions “Tarlabaşı: Dönüşümün Kıyısında” (Tarlabasi: On the Edge of
Transformation) in Galata Fotografhanesi (2014), “Milyonluk Manzara” (A View Worth of a Million), held in
Istanbul (2013). The exhibition “Soylulastirma” (Gentrification) held in Karsi Sanat Calismalari (Karsi Art
Works) in Istanbul (2007) was one of the first exhibitions held on this subject. The documentary
“Ecumenopolis” (2012) is on the massive transformation taking place in Istanbul.
viii
The transformation of Istanbul in a global city (or its ambition to become one), is parallel with the
developments taken place in all over the world since the 1970s, a period of neoliberal restructuring of national
economies opened to international flows of capital. In this period, some cities became “global cities” referring to
the main economic and cultural hubs in a global economy (Sassen, 2001).
24
ix
TOKI, the Housing Development Administration of Turkey is the main public body operating in the Turkish
housing market which builds various housing developments targeting mainly lower and lower-middle classes
and organises the market through rules and open bids https://www.toki.gov.tr/
x
Istanbul Annual Almanac 2012, published by the Istanbul Chamber of Urban Planners.
xi
http://mesaholding.com.tr/en/fields-of-activity/service/premises/cemil-molla-mansion
xii
“Istanbul’un ‘Ilk’leri ve ‘En’leri” (The ‘First’s and the ‘Most’s of Istanbul), a supplementary by Tempo
Magazine, August 2013.
xiii
http://mesaholding.com.tr/tr/sosyal-sorumluluk/cemil-molla-kosku
xiv
The Facebook page of Don Quixote Social Centre https://www.facebook.com/donkisotsosyalmerkezi
A news by Tugay Topcu published in http://www.yeniemlak.com/emlak-haberleri/tarihi-yarimada-istanbulunhayalet-binalari
xv
25