Post on 19-Jan-2023
CHAPTER FOUR
NETWORKED GENTRIFICATION:
PLACE-MAKING STRATEGIES
AND SOCIAL NETWORKS OF MIDDLE CLASS
GENTRIFERS IN ISTANBUL
EBRU SOYTEMEL AND BESIME ŞEN
Gentrification, a term that was first coined by Ruth Glass (1964) to
describe the residential movement of middle-class people into working-
class neighbourhoods, has been on the agenda of urban studies for nearly
three decades. Several explanations account for gentrification, and
although gentrification has different features in different cities, scholars
agree that it is a physical, economic, social and cultural phenomenon
which “involves the invasion of working-class neighbourhoods by middle-
class or higher-income groups within inner-city locations that resulted in
replacement or displacement of the original occupants” (Hamnett 1984).
Gentrification is not only considered a change in a neighbourhood’s
appearance, but it is also evaluated as a process of spatial-social change
and an economic restructuring (Zukin 1987; Smith 1987; 2002).
Gentrification studies have been important in terms of discussions related
to the relationship between globalisation, neoliberalism and the changing
role of the state (Smith 2002; Lees et al. 2008).
Furthermore, gentrification is also linked to changes in different class
positions and/or power relations. The new middle class encounters the
working-class in gentrified neighbourhoods, and inequalities in accessing
or acquiring urban space often lead to tensions between these groups.
These discussions have been among the important topics of urban
research. In other words, the processes generating gentrification and
gentrifiers are connected. For this reason, the analysis of gentrifiers, or
how gentrifiers themselves are produced, remains highly relevant (Rose
1984, 51), showing us that the analysis of gentrifiers’ profiles is closely
linked to class analysis and class formations discussions (Bridge 1994).
Chapter Four 68
This paper explores how gentrifiers in Istanbul mobilise their social
networks and social capital during the gentrification process, and how
their networks are constructed through processes of “place making” and
belonging. In addition, this chapter aims to demonstrate how social capital
and social networks work in practice during the gentrification process.
Concepts of social capital, social network and belonging offer new
discussions in gentrification research and enable researchers to investigate
how the new middle class acquires privileged positions in power relations
(Bourdieu 1986; Savage et al. 2005; Southerton 2002). Power relations
among different classes are not stable, but rather dynamic and ever-
changing. Therefore, this chapter examines place making and claiming
strategies of gentrifiers by focusing on the following questions: (a) What
are the spatial strategies of the new middle class, and what is the
importance of these strategies?; (b) How are class and spatial boundaries
designated in gentrified neighbourhoods?; (c) What kinds of networks and
relationships play a role in developing certain housing dispositions or
belonging patterns?
The outline of the chapter is as follows: the next sub-section describes
the field research areas and the qualitative data collected in gentrified
neighbourhoods. Section two reviews the literature on gentrification and
class analysis by exploring the possible contributions of social capital,
belonging and social network literatures to gentrification research.
Additionally, this section briefly reviews the gentrification research in
Turkey. Section three scrutinizes the social networks and belonging
patterns of gentrifiers in the Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray and Galata
neighbourhoods of Istanbul. The analysis focuses on two different
personal and institutional networks and their function and impact on the
gentrification processes. The chapter ends with a conclusion in section
four.
Description of the Field Research Areas and Methodology
This section discusses the context and methodology of the two research
projects on which this chapter is based. Both research projects are doctoral
dissertation projects conducted in gentrified neighbourhoods of Istanbul
(Şen 2006; Soytemel 2011).
Şen (2006) explored the gentrification process in the Galata neighbourhood,
and analysed how capitalist urban policies and interventions contribute to
the propagation of inequality among different social classes. Sen also
conducted a household survey with fifty households and fifty semi-
structured interviews with gentrifiers and people from businesses in Galata
Networked Gentrification 69
in 2005. During the analysis, field research notes from one year of
participant observation are also used to understand the impact of
transformation on the neighbourhood and the impact of gentrification on
everyday life in the neighbourhood.
By 1995 gentrification had become visible in Galata, and during the
time of the field work in 2005, spatial and class-related transformation in
the neighbourhood was clearly manifest. During these years some
properties were changing hands more than once in one year, which was a
significant indicator of the rent speculation occurring in regards to the
properties. Furthermore, several urban renewal projects focused on
Taksim, the city centre, and this had had an important impact on the
gentrification process in Galata. The close proximity of Galata to the city
centre impacted the density of investments not only in the housing sector
but also for cultural investments.
The second researcher explored the relationship between gentrification,
belonging and social class in the Golden Horn neighbourhoods of Istanbul
(Soytemel 2011). This study used a mixed method approach for the
analysis of belonging patterns of different social classes. During the
fieldwork period, between June 2007 and August 2008, two hundred
household surveys and fifty life-history interviews were conducted in the
Fener, Balat, Ayvansaray and Hasköy neighbourhoods of the Golden
Horn/Haliç area (GHA) in Istanbul.
In the last twenty years there have been drastic urban interventions in
GHA. By 2000, the Turkish central government declared the area to be “an
open-air museum of the city.” The Golden Horn/Haliç area had been one
of the main industrial areas in Turkey since the late nineteenth century. Up
until the mid-1950s, these neighbourhoods hosted the non-Muslim
populations of Istanbul (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Jewish and Armenian
populations), and following their departure, migrant labourers, mainly
from cities of the Black Sea region like Giresun, Samsun and
Şebinkarahisar, clustered together in GHA neighbourhoods. Until the
1980s, these neighbourhoods were mainly populated by working-class
families. Following deindustrialisation and the removal of factories and
ateliers in the Golden Horn area, this area lost the majority of its working
class population.1 By the 1990s, subsequent urban rehabilitation and
restoration processes eventually led to gentrification, and had a drastic
impact on the neighbourhood’s population. By the early 2000s not only
middle-class gentrifiers but also low-income migrant families started to
1 In 1985 more than 4,000 buildings were expropriated by the metropolitan
municipality. Additionally, 696 factories and 2,020 workplaces were demolished,
mainly on the Haliç’s south side (Erden 2009).
Chapter Four 70
live in the neighbourhood along with the remaining working-class
population. This process eventually altered the class composition of the
neighbourhoods and contributed to greater social stratification.
This chapter is based on the qualitative data collected in these two
research projects. Although it uses different fieldwork materials conducted
in different periods, similarities are evident in the narratives given by
gentrifiers in both projects regarding their social networks and motivated
the writing of this chapter. Both case studies reveal that gentrifiers in these
two neighbourhoods use their existing social networks and create new
networks during the gentrification process for social and economic
advantage to make better investments and to claim spaces for themselves.
I. Gentrification, Belonging and Social Networks
of the Middle Class
i. Gentrification and Class Analysis
Until the 1990s there were two competing perspectives in gentrification
research. One position centred on supply side/production analyses and
focused specifically on the effects of gentrification, and used economic
factors to evaluate the process of gentrification (Smith & Williams 1986).
Scholars preferred to examine structural and large-scale aspects of
gentrification and focused on changing levels of capital investments.
Smith (2002) argued that the gentrification process created a growing “rent
gap” between the potential value of the land and its existing use value, and
underlined the differences between capitalised and potential ground rent.
Smith described this process as “revanchist,” and the “retaking” and
remodelling of the city by the middle class, and the rent-gap theory,
provide links between gentrification research and larger processes of
capitalism.
However, others scholars focused attention on the demand/consumption
side of the process and tried to gather data about new middle-class
families and their consumption practices and lifestyle preferences (Ley
1994; 1996). Researchers pointed to the changing gender composition and
the distinguishing consumption patterns of this group. Therefore, for some
scholars gentrification was related to demand from the new middle class,
which connected gentrification to a more individual-based analysis
(Bridge 2003; Warde 1991; Butler 1997; Butler & Robson 2001). Rose &
Bondi highlighted the connections between gender and gentrification by
looking at changes that included the women’s labour market (Rose 1984;
Bondi 1991). Rose looked at gentrification as a housing strategy within the
Networked Gentrification 71
labour force and explained urban restructuring by focusing on the gender
dimension of the middle class (Rose 1984).
By the 1990s, gentrification research lost momentum and many
researchers were searching for a synthesis between these two explanations
(Lees 2000). In subsequent years, most researchers agreed that both
explanations had utility and relevance for gentrification research.
However, gentrification research and researchers were also criticised for
what was seen as a myopic focus on gentrifiers and for neglecting non-
gentrifying groups, as well as the processes of displacement and relocation
(Slater 2006; Watt 2008). Slater (2006) called for more academic criticism
in this regard and suggested greater focus on the experiences of less-
advantaged groups; on displacement, class conflict and community upheavals.
Despite the importance of class analysis in gentrification research, until
recently few studies have discussed how gentrification research
contributes to understandings of class (Bridge 1994; 2001; Butler &
Robson 2003a; Watt 2008; 2009). Although most gentrification research is
structured around class opposition, most accounts fail to discuss class
relations, and instead researchers use class as an occupational or income
definition (Bridge 1994, 3).
One of the reasons why class analysis has been so important in
gentrification research relates to the emergence of the “new middle class,”
with its new consumption patterns and difference from the “traditional
middle class.” The members of the new middle class are considered to be
individual careerists who are more mobile than the traditional middle class
or bourgeoisie (Bridge 2003; Butler 1997; Butler & Robson 2001). Being
employed in service-sector firms, and with high levels of cultural and
social capital, members of the new middle class—in some cases almost
used synonymously with gentrifiers—are often described as part of
international networks, financiers and professionals working for
multinational or large companies (Hamnett 2000; 2003; Ley 1981; 1996).
Unlike the “old/traditional” or “routine” middle or working classes, the
new middle class prefers to live in inner city locations and seeks lifestyles
different from suburbanites. The gentrification process is explained as a
consequence of changes in the occupational structure of advanced
capitalist cities, as well as a result of the rise of the service class and the
transformation of manufacturing centres into business service centres
(Hamnett 1996, 2003; Ley 1996). Bridge cites the impact of prior
educational experience and the conversion of cultural capital into economic
capital, which was essential for development of the gentrification aesthetic
(Bridge 1995, 243). Warde is “sceptical of accounts that identify an
emerging, coherent, service class culture” and claims that gentrification is
Chapter Four 72
more about changes in household composition related to “changing gender
composition of the salariat,” in addition to consumption patterns of middle
class groups (Warde 1991, 228).
However, the gentrifier profile is much more diverse nowadays, and
gentrifiers described by Warde are just a small section of this type. Until
recently, the analysis of class relations in gentrification research
predominantly tried to determine if gentrification is a result of a change in
class structure, or if the notion of gentrification can contribute to our
understanding of class structure and class formation (Bridge 1994, 9).
Some consider gentrification a latent form of class structuration, and
“most of the class constitutive effects of gentrification occur before the
process has taken place in the case of lifestyle and taste or outside the
neighbourhoods in division of labour and workplace relations” (Bridge
1994, 30). Two key occurrences are highlighted as the manifestation of
class relations in the gentrification process. The first takes place when
urban speculators and developers decide what inner-city land to use: “they
exist on one side of the class power relation and gentrifiers and working
class exist on the other side,” a process enabling “a two-class relation”
(Ibid). The second critical moment is related to the struggle between the
gentrifiers and the working class, which results in “a three-class model”
(Bridge 1994, 42).
More recently, scholars have considered the middle-class habitus as
important for the analysis of class relations in gentrification (Bridge 1994,
2001; Butler 2002, 2007; Butler & Robson 2001). According to Bridge,
the new-middle-class gentrifiers’ habitus is characterised by distinctions in
neighbourhoods, housing, lifestyle and consumption and for that reason,
the motivating force behind gentrification is “the drive to maintain
distinction in the struggles over status in social space, and distinction is
conferred by the ability to define and possess rare goods such as taste and
discernment” (Bridge 1994, 207). However, instead of just assuming
habitus as a production of some unconscious mental and bodily processes
such as Bourdieu (1985; 1990) did, for Bridge it is more important to look
at “how practices of people consciously fall in line with the habitus in
order to relieve the cognitive stress caused by the disjuncture between
individual preferences and what people can achieve” (Bridge 2001, 208).
Accordingly, Bridge argues that the new middle class is a result of an
emerging class fraction, and that its members are likely to be conscious of
“their relationship to the working class, as well as their relationship with
the other fractions of the middle class,” and that they use “spatial strategy
for the expression of their class habitus” (Bridge 2001, 211–212).
Networked Gentrification 73
These recent analyses on class provide new tools for researchers to
study class inequalities in the gentrification process. It is now considered
important to examine local responses to gentrification. In some cities,
gentrifiers and non-gentrifying groups become neighbours. Everyday
interactions between different groups, inclusionary and exclusionary
practices, as well as border-making processes, are important in analysing
spatial clustering and social cohesion in gentrified neighbourhoods. In
order to understand the individual and collective strategies of different
groups in the gentrification process, there is still a need to address the
processes that contribute to the production of the “gentrification habitus.”
Why do people choose certain areas to live in and how do they develop a
sense of place? What kinds of networks and relationships play a role in
developing certain housing dispositions or belonging patterns? To what
extent do socio-economic or symbolic borders limit interactions between
different groups and lead to spatial clustering in the gentrification
processes? This chapter contends that discussions on social capital,
belonging and social networks can contribute to an investigation about
these questions and propose some answers. The next section briefly
summarises this literature and discusses its possible contributions to
gentrification research.
ii. Social Capital, Belonging and Social Networks
in the Gentrification Process?
Research on social capital, belonging and social networks provide us a
“powerful understanding of the process that both divides and unifies urban
dwellers” (Blokland & Savage 2008). Blokland & Savage indicate that
social network analyses can be used to inform our understanding of the
exclusive and inclusive aspects of social capital, and that “social capital
needs to be seen as a spatial process” (1). The concept of social capital has
become popular in social sciences (Bourdieu 1985; 1986; Putnam 1993;
Portes 2000). Social capital refers to “the ability of actors to secure
benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social
structures” (Portes 1998, 6). Lin refers to social capital as an “investment
in social relations with expected returns in the market place” (Lin 2001).
Blokland & Ejik suggest that social capital and social networks provide
opportunities to access the resources of those participating in the social
relations (Blokland & Eijik 2007, 3). Bourdieu’s concept of social capital
is connected to his theoretical analysis of social class where he defines
three dimensions of capital: economic, cultural and social. Bourdieu
focuses more on power relations and connections, the “relationships of
Chapter Four 74
mutual acquaintance and recognition” which are convertible into economic
capital (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu does not see the existence of networks
of connections as a natural or social given, but considers them to be
constituted by the investment strategies of individuals or collectives
(Ibid.).2 Much more has been written about social capital, but a wider
discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter. Most relevant is the
literature relating to gentrification.
Social capital and social network research provide germane points of
discussion for the analysis of class relations in gentrification research.
Within social network analysis, capacities of different groups and their
networks to link and provide researchers new perspectives to examine
inequalities and power dynamics between the gentrifying and non-
gentrifying groups. Furthermore, in recent years social capital, and the
social network framework, have been important for urban policy makers.
Community development has become a prominent policy discourse in
urban policy making (Blokland 2003; Blokland & Savage 2008). Those
who are socially or economically excluded, the poor or residents locked in
disadvantaged positions, are considered to be empowered by social capital,
social networks and the support of others (Blokland & Noordhoff, 2008).
Butler & Robson examined three gentrified neighbourhoods in south
London in terms of middle-class place making and tried to link the
differences in the transformation of these areas to differences in social
capital. They refer to social capital as “the sum of actual and potential
resources that can be mobilised through membership in social networks of
actors and organisations” (2001, 2146). Their research shows that high
levels of education, and the concomitant access to resources, enable
gentrifiers to find better solutions to problems such as better schooling for
their children. Social and cultural capital combined often yields
improvements and upgrades in neighbourhoods, such as improvements in
urban or public services. They make a clear distinction between
“gentrification by collective action” and “gentrification by capital,” and
underline the importance of examining different strategies of capital
deployment in transforming the locality in which the group has settled in
(Ibid., 2160).
Similar to social capital and social network analysis, belonging
research provides new insights for understanding social inequality within
gentrified neighbourhoods. Some researchers look at class culture,
2 Bourdieu (1986) says the amount of social capital depends on the number of
people in the network and their connections therein. The people within this
network can effectively mobilize and utilize the capital possessed in his/her own
right through each of the other people to whom the individual is connected (1986).
Networked Gentrification 75
consumption and lifestyle practices of middle-class groups, and draw
attention to the spatially mobile character of new belonging patterns
(Southerton 2002; Savage et al. 2005; Savage 2010; Watt 2009). People’s
sense of belonging is considered to be “not linked to any historical roots
they may have in the area”; instead, the sense of belonging is seen to be
developed through connecting and comparing other places (Savage et al.
2005). Instead of seeing belonging as permanent, scholars suggest that
“belonging results from identifications with the stylistic properties and
lifestyles” (Southerton 2002, 171). Southerton notes the impact of
geographical mobility on the sense of belonging, and the role of boundaries
between groups. He suggests that “symbolic boundaries presuppose
inclusion and exclusion and are constructed through the social practices,
attitudes or values that are affirmed and re-affirmed through interaction”
(Ibid., 175).
Similar to Southerton’s analysis, Savage et al. emphasized the mobile
character of new belonging patterns and underlined that people’s
belonging is “not linked to any historical roots they may have in the area”
(Savage et al. 2005). Moreover, the authors demonstrate that people create
their sense of belonging by connecting and comparing their location to
other places, and they also explicate how the middle-class claims moral
rights over a place. Introducing the concept of “elective belonging,”
Savage et al. suggest that places are not characterised by tensions between
insiders and outsiders, but people elect to belong to places that match their
habitus, which is embodied in their dispositions. Following the work of
Bourdieu, they examine class formation of their sample and show how
habitus is territorially located and how middle-class people’s claims over
places are related to their capacity to move. By looking at oppositions
between mobile income earners and stable locals, neighbourhoods are
presented as local units that are reproduced and redefined through people’s
imagination rather than seen as passive, static products (Savage et al.
2005). Similar to Butler & Robson’s (2001; 2003a) work, Savage’s
analysis shows that people’s imagination is also linked to their social
networks and their different strategies of capital deployment.
Furthermore, Savage elucidates how the politics of belonging is related
to cultural capital and social class, and discusses the process of urban
segregation by looking at the “spatialization of class” (Savage 2010).
Instead of portraying advantaged or middle-class groups as people “caught
up in the space of flows,” his analysis reveals how middle-class people are
culturally engaged and deeply invested in their locations. Introducing a
discussion on “elective belonging” and “dwelling in place,” Savage
underscores that what matters for middle-class people is living where
Chapter Four 76
people like them live, and that the middle classes are not “deeply
concerned” with “socially cohesive neighbourhoods” (Ibid.).
This chapter claims that the “spatialization of class” is not a
spontaneous process. Rather, it is linked to social networks of different
groups and their positions in power relations in local milieus. For this
reason, this chapter focuses on the position of gentrifiers in power
relations through the analysis of their social networks and belonging
patterns.
iii. Gentrification Research in Turkey
Gentrification studies have gradually become popular and have
proliferated as a new area of research in Turkey over the last two decades.
The earlier discussion on gentrification processes initially focused on the
etymological problems of translating “gentrification” into the Turkish
language. Due to “the lack of a gentry class” in Turkey, and the
corresponding lack of a term for such a concept, different suggestions
were considered by different scholars, such as nezihleştirmek (the literal
translation being decent neighbourhoods in the process of becoming more
clean without problems) (Keyder 1999), or soylulaştırmak (“ennoblization”)
(İslam 2006; Şen 2006). These earlier studies explored and tried to
conceptualise the class identity and occupational positions of the gentrifiers.
However, very few of these examples were based on empirical
analyses. The majority of earlier gentrification research was based on the
observations of researchers, or the interpretation of macro-demographic
indicators without any empirical justification. The first gentrification
research workshop was organised by the French Institute for Anatolian
Studies in 2003 in Istanbul, and the workshop papers were subsequently
published as a book. The book presents the earlier conceptual differences
of researchers where one can find different perspectives and results about
the profiles of the gentrifiers (Behar & Islam 2006). In some of these
papers, gentrification is considered a process where actors (gentrifiers) are
assessed as individuals acting individually, who do not have any networks
or connections with others during the gentrification process (Uzun 2001).
During these early years of gentrification research, “gentrification”
was not yet a “dirty” word. The initial discussions on gentrification related
to wider discussions on globalisation and neoliberal urbanism. Researchers
explored examples from Western literature and Western cities, and tried to
identify comparable areas or neighbourhoods in Istanbul. Bosphorus
neighbourhoods like Arnavutköy, Kuzguncuk and Ortaköy, and inner-city
neighbourhoods like Galata, Cihangir, Fener and Balat, became the focus
Networked Gentrification 77
of gentrification research in Istanbul (Uzun 2003; Ergun 2004; Islam
2005; 2006; Şen 2006). While some sociologists focused on the influence
of globalisation in the development of new identities, new shopping malls,
tourist areas, and wealth in Istanbul (Keyder 1992; Robins & Aksoy 1995;
1996), urban planners and architects focused on urban regeneration,
strategic urban planning, urban conservation, competitive cities and
sustainability (Kocabaş 2006; Erden 2006). İslam (2005) enumerated three
different dynamics for waves of gentrification. According to him, the first
wave related to a high level of environmental amenities (1980s). The
dynamics of intense cultural and leisure activities created the second wave
(1990s) and, finally, the third wave (2000 onwards) was shaped by
institutional investment projects.
Behar & Pérouse (2006) engage with the discourse related to social
networks of gentrifiers. Their interpretation was based on observations,
not on empirical analysis. They consider gentrifiers to be “foreigners” or
people “who were educated abroad”, “who have different lifestyles and
who are able to appraise opportunities in the housing market” and “who
are influential or have some power in the society.” These people are
considered as mainly active in local NGOs, engaged in left or social
democratic movements, and have good connections abroad. Furthermore,
Behar & Pérouse’s analysis sees gentrifiers as people who appreciate a
cosmopolitan lifestyle and espouse cosmopolitan views, or who believe in
the dialogue of religions instead of the clash of civilizations (Ibid.). As
Behar & Pérouse indicate, gentrifiers, although among the initiators or
active agents of the gentrification process, like to distance themselves
from the concept of gentrification.
In later years the number of empirical studies gradually increased. İnce
(2003) explored a central, historical neighbourhood in Istanbul and
focused on the role of artists as gentrifiers in transforming the street and
producing “bohemian” nostalgia. İnce shows the importance of cultural
industries and how cultural investments, which match the lifestyle of the
middle class, accelerate the gentrification process in certain neighbourhoods.
In other research, Şen (2006) explains how local networks and
associations are important for the new middle class and their investment
strategies during the gentrification process in Galata. İslam and Enlil
(2006) investigate the dynamics of gentrification-led displacement in
Galata. Similar to Şen’s findings, they observed that taking advantage of
the rent gap, many investors bought properties to renovate and sell them
on at higher prices (İslam & Enlil 2006). They point out two reasons for
the escalation of property values in Galata: “the new legal arrangements
that allow property ownership by foreigners [and] the new act on the
Chapter Four 78
renewal and re-use of deteriorated historic housing building stock which
endows the local authorities with new powers to intervene and regenerate
such areas” (İslam & Enlil 2006). In terms of displacement, İslam & Enlil
reveal the importance of informal mechanisms that regulate the rental
housing market, with different levels of social relations providing cheap
rental stock in the area for years by protecting the residents from the rising
rents. Furthermore, they identify the tactics of landlords or companies for
displacing tenants and point to the importance of tenants’ awareness of
their legal rights and their willingness to defend themselves against
displacement.
İlkuçan & Sandıkçı (2005) consider gentrification to be a spatial
manifestation of a wider consumption ideology and analyse gentrification
processes in the Cihangir neighbourhood of Istanbul. Gentrifiers are
considered to be members of consumption communities who would like to
distinguish themselves from the traditional middle classes. In earlier
research, İlkuçan mentions university students, artists and academicians
with low incomes as the pioneers of gentrification in Cihangir, who chose
the neighbourhood due to the proximity of cultural outlets. He describes
followers of the frontier gentrifiers as investors who are “more risk averse
in their residential choices” (İlkuçan 2004, 74). İlkuçan also mentions the
keen sense of identity of the “New Cihangirli” among his respondents and
their emphasis on the cultural capital and diversity of dwellers in the
neighbourhood.
The majority of these examples mainly centre on the profile of the
gentrifiers. In terms of belonging and boundary making, Mills’ research
(2006) on Kuzguncuk turns attention to urban space and familiarity. Mills
underlines the link between two nostalgic narratives and their impact on
the gentrification process of the neighbourhood: the narrative of
neighbourhood (mahalle) as the urban space of belonging and familiarity,
and the narrative of multicultural tolerance regarding Kuzguncuk’s
minorities. According to Mills, these two narratives reproduce a social
memory of a past cosmopolitanism and help to deny the current divisions
of class and origin (Mills 2006, 363). Similar to İlkuçan, Mills mentions
the importance of identity of Kuzguncuklu (people living in Kuzguncuk),
and reveals how neighbourhood space is defined by this identity, which
refers to boundaries of being an insider or outsider, as well as a neighbour
or foreigner. Both İlkuçan and Mills discuss networks among the
gentrifiers and how they become active actors in neighbourhood
associations. However, their analyses do not focus on the role of social
capital and social networks on the place-making strategies of the
gentrifiers. Mills (2006), instead, places the accent on the impact of
Networked Gentrification 79
belonging on gentrification. However, later her analysis mainly focuses on
the social, cultural and collective memory, and how memory is
fundamentally dependent on location. Although she briefly mentions
conflicts and tensions between the non-gentrifying group and gentrifiers,
she overlooks inequalities related to the gentrification process in
Kuzguncuk.
In gentrification studies in Turkey, gentrifiers are analysed with regard
to their demographic characteristics. Gentrifiers mobilise their class-based
capacities through their social networks, and this has a social and
economic impact during the gentrification process. For this reason,
analysis of power relations and class distinctions are significant in
understanding different place-making strategies. This chapter analyses the
belonging patterns of gentrifiers and the uses of social networks by
gentrifiers as a place-making and place-claiming strategy.
II. Networked Gentrification
The analyses of gentrifier groups have always been linked to social
class. Although in most cases gentrifiers are considered individuals, and
researchers have focused on their individual characteristics, more recently
the importance of exploring the cultural and social capital of gentrifiers
has become significant for the discussions on the new middle class and its
distinctive middle-class identity. Social networks of gentrifiers are also
significant during the gentrification and urban transformation processes in
neighbourhoods. These networks can be transformed into neighbourhood
associations or local groups that have an important impact on local urban
policies or interventions. Belonging patterns show us not only the place-
making strategies, but also the boundary-making processes of different
groups. Moreover, social networks and belonging patterns give us a
picture of class capacities based on neighbourhoods. For this reason, this
chapter draws on theories relating to social networks and belonging
patterns of gentrifiers.
We identified two different social networks among the gentrifiers in
Galata and Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray: personal networks and institutional
networks. The first network is associated with middle-class habitus and
belonging, and the majority of this network covers social networks prior to
the gentrification process, such as social networks with acquaintances,
friends and family. In some cases, new friends or new neighbours can join
this network. These personal networks develop through similarities or
common causes, and in most cases provide reference points for developing
trust. In some cases, when there is a common cause, such as an infrastructure
Chapter Four 80
problem, or a proposed demolition threat, this problem could bring
property owners and old and new dwellers together. However, when there
is a need for collective action, gentrifiers play a more active role in
developing these networks. The second type of network is institutional.
These are networks with local governments, local or central
municipalities, networks with private companies, or other bureaucratic
institutions such as networks with cultural and heritage conservation
boards and/or key actors in these institutions. Commercial or business
networks and occupational networks are also part of these institutional
networks. Overall, good relations and acquaintanceship with institutional
networks can be vital to attain urban services, or useful for the economic
success of the investors and/or businesses in gentrified neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhood-based commercial networks, such as tradesmen’s
networks, are among these institutional networks. The next section of the
chapter concentrates on these two networks and the belonging patterns of
gentrifiers.
i. Middle-Class Belonging and Personal Networks
Gentrified neighbourhoods have dynamic population structures and are
spaces of urban living found through explorations and comparisons with
other neighbourhoods. Most gentrifiers have a clear conception of where
they want to live, and most do research to find these locales. These areas
usually possess specific characteristics deemed desirable by gentrifiers and
are determined by complex cultural codes, consumption patterns and taste
preferences. Neighbourhood explorations and expansions into new
neighbourhoods are mostly related to the social capital and social
networks of the gentrifiers.
The process of choosing the right neighbourhood and the right property
is linked to belonging patterns of the middle class. None of the gentrifiers
interviewed in Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray had any prior ties to these
neighbourhoods. Despite the poverty of these neighbourhoods, and the
overall problems related to the physical structure of the houses, many of
the gentrifiers mentioned the positive aspects of living in these
neighbourhoods by using historic preservation as constitutive of the new
“elite” identity. Instead of merely forming part of the “middle-class
crowd,” gentrifiers living in apartment blocks see themselves as “rescuing
houses from ignorant hands” as well as witnessing the “beauty” and the
nostalgia of community life among locals as positive aspects of living in
these neighbourhoods. Similar to Mills’ gentrifiers, and how they employ
the nostalgic narrative about the neighbourhoods’ cosmopolitan past,
Networked Gentrification 81
gentrifiers in Galata and Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray regard themselves as the
rescuers of historical houses and historical artefacts:
[shows an object] this is very important for me, I am sure it has lived many
things before. We believe in the soul of objects. Therefore, even if we
didn’t know each other, we came together here. The people are like me in
this neighbourhood. They all like antiques, all of them want old things, not
new. That is why they are coming to this neighbourhood.
Social networks play an important role for gentrifiers. Neighbourhoods
encourage certain types of relationships, specifically practical relationships
involving the exchange of small services (Bridge 2002; Blokland &
Savage 2008). Social networks provide common, shared boundaries and
help to define the social relations among the different groups (Bridge
2002). In Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray neighbourhoods, the first residents were
journalists, artists and single white-collar professionals such as lawyers,
architects and academics. Many of the gentrifiers, most frequently foreign
gentrifiers, were either introduced to these neighbourhoods by friends or
by gentrifiers from other neighbourhoods. Friends, people they had met
through either consulates, embassies or work-related environments, people
from other gentrified neighbourhoods, and even tour groups and tour
guides, helped and accompanied them when they searched for their
properties. Ayşe, an academic who came to Istanbul with her husband
(who is also an academic) from the U.S. to teach American literature,
described their decision to buy a house and stay longer in Istanbul as
follows:
I am a faculty member at the [names university], American Literature
department. In fact, my husband and I were the founders of the department;
he is also a professor at [names university]. We came 9 years ago, we were
planning to stay for a few years, but we liked the place. Istanbul is now a
great city. First, we travelled from [names city] to Istanbul in our first
years here, but now we’ll stay here more because we have this house
project. We were strolling around the university and we became keen on
the old houses and then it became a passion. Lots of American professors
came to the university and we are guiding them within these
neighbourhoods.
Later in the interview, Ayşe describes how and why they chose the
neighbourhood and the house they ended up purchasing:
We knew that the most interesting places were not places like Etiler, (an
upper-class neighbourhood close to the Bosphorus) or areas near the
Chapter Four 82
Bosphorus. We knew what they were interested in. When they show
interest, it raises your awareness. We decided to buy a house at the end of
2005. [Names a well-known author], he is my husband’s mentor. He is our
friend. He showed us all the historical places and we went on tours with
him. When you are visiting places, you, of course, see houses, and like
other people, we like the idea of “giving life” to an old house. We were at a
Christmas party at his house in 2005, we saw [names an art dealer and
tourist guide]. He is also a tour guide, organising tours around these areas,
and we also knew him from his talks at our university about the history of
Istanbul. During these talks, things began to take shape. He told us that
“there are really very beautiful houses. It is the time to buy. Those houses
will be very expensive. Big projects are coming. Are you interested in
buying one?” He convinced us and he showed us many houses.
Fig. 4.1. Tourists on a walking tour in Fener-Balat, 2013.
For foreign gentrifiers, personal networks help in overcoming language
barriers and, in most cases, provide assistance through the legal and
planning periods. Ann, who had been renting a room in Galata for some
years, was introduced to Fenerand Balat by her artist friends she had met
in Galata. As Galata was becoming more commercial, expensive and
Networked Gentrification 83
crowded, Ann’s friends became dissatisfied living in Galata, and they
began looking for “more untouched” historical neighbourhoods:
Well, I rented a room in Kuledibi in Galata, near the Galata Tower. There I
met a lot of artists. They were kind of unhappy with what their
neighbourhood became. They said, maybe, maybe, we are going to move
to Fener. So I thought where is Fener? So I just went there and strolled
around. So, it was really a wonderful thing, because you have the ferry
boat here, you have the bus station here, it is so close to Taksim (city
centre).
Gentrifiers sometimes rely on their personal networks within and
outside of the neighbourhood to try to reduce the cost of renovation and/or
conservation of important historical properties. Oftentimes this strategy is
successful, and domiciles of “special historical” significance are acquired
through the help of these social networks. Foreigners and their networks
were mentioned in interviews with participants in both Fener-Balat-
Ayvansaray and Galata:
There is an English man. His friends buy properties. They restore and sell
them. When a foreigner buys a property and restores and sells it, it costs
more than the others. Look at Salti Passage, it was called French Parade.
Now, it is called Italian Parade (Neighbourhood headman-muhtar, male,
d.o.b. 1965).
Foreigners from other countries have a distinctive role as gentrifiers in
Istanbul. These gentrifiers prefer cosmopolitan neighbourhoods in historical
centres. Some restore and sell old houses through their personal networks,
or even become active agents in the property markets as mediators
between local property owners and potential buyers from abroad. Both in
Galata and Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray it was possible to find foreign
gentrifiers who had become property developers and investors. They not
only have transnational connections but the majority have high human
capital, adaptive employment skills or flexible occupations, which often
afford them the ease of finding employment in other countries. Although
Warde (1991) claims that this heterogeneity of occupations does not
enable a cultural consensus between gentrifiers, it was observed that they
could become active agents of local networks and associations for the
common cause of “developing” or “beautifying” the neighbourhoods.
Florida states that the creative class, or bourgeois bohemians, desire
diversity and tolerance when they make their residential decisions (Florida
2004). Bohemian values, or the emphasis on tolerance, are related to
liberalism and social pluralism of the gentrifiers’ cultural capital. Ziya, a
Chapter Four 84
gentrifier from Galata, explains the pluralist environment of the
neighbourhood:
There are artists, writers, and also academicians like me, and this is a place
that you can find such people … a place that hosts all types of people, from
homosexuals to heterosexuals, because our community has a pluralist
understanding. (Ziya, male, academician)
Gentrifiers’ views and perspectives about the future of their
neighbourhoods are related to and developed through their capacities, such
as educational opportunities abroad, or their experiences as tourists. They
not only compare living conditions abroad with more affluent places—
these experiences give them practical knowledge to engage in
neighbourhood networks and enable them to provide guidance or a road
map for the environmental problems of the neighbourhood. For instance,
some respondents mentioned that living in Galata was a privilege, and
some even compared it with living in Italy. Some saw this as desirable
because it lent a feeling of historical texture to the neighbourhood.
However, they were also supporting commercial and touristic activities in
the neighbourhood, which could be risky for historical texture. In most
cases, the narratives of gentrifiers indicate that they don’t have a whole or
coherent perception or understanding of the city. Rather, they have a more
fragmented and atomized conception. Furthermore, this narrative of
privilege justifies the displacement of the non-gentrifying groups from the
neighbourhood.
ii. Institutional Networks and Local Power Dynamics
Institutional networks are also important in the gentrification process.
Acquaintances in public and private institutions and companies, as well as
good relationships with municipalities, yield benefits for newcomers.
Neighbourhood associations are also among these networks. Both İlkuçan
and Mills mention the importance of neighbourhood associations during
the gentrification process and indicate how gentrifiers use these
associations to improve the reputation of their neighbourhoods (İlkuçan
2004; Mills 2006). Mills (2006) mentions members of the Kuzguncuk
Neighbourhood Association as a group of primarily middle-class families
and points out how newcomers develop new social networks within the
neighbourhood with the help of the association. Neighbourhood
associations often become important when there is a common cause. For
example, Mills mention how gentrifiers united to save an historic market
garden (bostan) of the neighbourhood, and through their participation in
Networked Gentrification 85
this effort became more embedded Kuzguncuklus (people of Kuzguncuk).
In the Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray, neighbourhood associations enabled
property owners to organise against the threat of demolition and urban
transformation projects initiated by the Fatih Municipality. In Galata, apart
from the neighbourhood association, there are also business associations
formed by new business owners and managers. Respondents, mainly
restaurant managers, mentioned the importance of these networks and
relationships with the local municipality in solving neighbourhood-related
problems. One respondent describes the active role of café or club owners
and managers as follows:
The cafés have a big role here. They want to move and open their cafés in
different places, they got bored of Istiklal and came here. They find a small
shop first and later develop contacts with the owner of the shop. Some of
the shop managers were introduced to the neighbourhood through their
friends. They came to a house party. They see the different architecture and
decide to bring their business here. Some of them are buying as an
investment, they foresee that the prices will eventually increase. The logic
is, let’s buy it for 100 now, we will sell it for 200 later. (Restaurant
manager, female, d.o.b. 1957)
Local associations can also be an important point of interface with
public authorities:
We thought about the possible ways to rescue this space [neighbourhood]
and we established an association to organise shopkeepers. (Restaurant
manager, d.o.b. 1960)
The Jazz Association and Galata Association organized joint events.
During the 1970s, they were playing jazz at the Galata Tower. We are the
only jazz club in the city. The Ministry of Culture should support us. (Club
owner, d.o.b. 1961)
The organisation of these different groups or associations sometimes
creates tensions in the neighbourhoods. Some consider the members of
these organisations as having more advantages and better access to local
knowledge and local plans, such as urban projects or plans of the
municipality, and the historical aspects of houses, inter alia. One
respondent in Galata describes how these institutions would become
beneficial for its members:
Chapter Four 86
… the neighbourhood association was established by newcomers for their
own interests. They especially liked to buy terraces, and they bought many
during 1994, 1995 and 1996. They bought many places, but they have been
keeping them for a while to sell them for better prices. (Worker, male,
d.o.b. 1955)
By comparison, in Galata, there were other organisations dominated by
working-class migrant families. These organisations provided networks
and services to people with respect to their migrant identities, and the
majority of them were organising events or providing social assistance to
migrant populations. Membership of these associations is linked to place
of origin, not to neighbourhood of residence:
In the Erzincan Village Association, they organise funerals, religious
gatherings and celebrations. Sometimes, they do weddings there or
organize dinners for the solidarity of the members. People from other
districts come to these events. (Retired, male, d.o.b. 1953)
Occupational networks of gentrifiers also provide connections that are
valuable during the gentrification process. University-related networks
appear to be the most common social networks among the gentrifiers in
Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray. In numerous interviews, faculty members from
universities or research institutes in Istanbul, as well as colleagues from
universities in other countries, were the most consistent homebuyers.
Having had an experience similar to that of the couple from the U.S.,
Susan, who had studied at the SOAS and worked at King’s College
London for some years, narrates the arrival of her neighbours from
London as follows:
I have friends here, you know the guy who was my teacher, when I was in
the SOAS in London. He is originally from Edirnekapı and he is back. He
lives a seven-minute walk from here. He and his wife and three kids. They
just had a new baby girl. They live up there, we don't see them as often as
we should, but they are close. I also have friends just around this corner.
Networks with media or media employers constitute another important
area of analysis. Similar to Mills’ (2006) observations in Kuzguncuk, in
Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray the media connections of gentrifiers were useful
for the coverage of the rehabilitation process in Fener-Balat neighbourhoods.
During the early days of the rehabilitation process, interviews with the
remaining members of the non-Muslim minorities in Balat were published
in national newspapers alongside articles emphasising the cosmopolitan
history of these neighbourhoods. Both in Galata and Fener-Balat-
Networked Gentrification 87
Ayvansaray, the popularity of these areas increased after the appearance of
restored buildings on TV shows and design magazines. In Fener-Balat-
Ayvansaray, more than fifty television serials and films have been
produced and shot in this area since the late 1990s. In Fener, a new cafe
was opened for the artists and technical staff of film companies, and in
some streets some of the homeowners started new businesses by renting
out their houses to TV shows. Media presentations have increased the
popularity of these neighbourhoods. Like Cihangir, living in this type of
neighbourhood is often presented as “a new way of life” (İlkuçan 2004).
This process has accelerated the gentrification process, but did not allow
for media coverage of the dislocation and relocation processes, as well as
the negative impact of gentrification on non-gentrifying groups.
Fig. 4.2. Filming a TV show in Fener-Balat, 2013.
Chapter Four 88
Conclusion
Istanbul has been governed by neoliberal urban policies for nearly
three decades. This has had a drastic impact on the city, especially in the
central areas. All together, these urban policies and gentrification
processes have altered the class composition, especially in inner-city
neighbourhoods. Property ownership structures, the dynamics of urban
segregation and power relations in these neighbourhoods have changed.
This chapter has analysed how gentrifiers mobilise their social networks
and social capital during the gentrification processes. The field-research
results of these two different case studies indicate that place-making
strategies and belonging patterns of the middle classes are important
aspects in gentrification. The position taking of different groups in
gentrified neighbourhoods is linked to inequalities in power relations, as
well as the spatialization of class and the processes of urban segregation
(Savage 2010).
In Istanbul, two decades of gentrification have led to no substantial
changes in the provision of public services in these neighbourhoods.
Improvement of public services is rarely of active concern for gentrifiers.
Instead, improvements in physical spaces such as cleaning and the
maintenance of streets, garbage collection and street lighting are among
the needs most frequently mentioned by gentrifiers in these
neighbourhoods. Instead of mobilising their social networks or social
capital to improve public services, these two case studies show that the
majority of the gentrifiers use private services such as schools, health
clinics, hospitals, inter alia. Contrary to mainstream examples which focus
on the importance of schooling and public schools in gentrification
processes (Butler & Robson 2003b; Bridge 2003), in recent years, the
majority of public schools and public hospitals in or around the gentrified
neighbourhoods in the central districts of Istanbul has been put up for sale.
In Istanbul, the gentrification process does not rapidly lead to class
homogeneity. Most gentrified neighbourhoods have diversified housing
stock (i.e. squatter housing, illegal/unregistered house extensions, and
dilapidated old houses), and for this reason it is possible to find working
class families or poor families also living in these neighbourhoods.
Furthermore, displacement becomes a process in itself, and during this
gentrifiers and non-gentrifiers become neighbours. When one looks at the
student profiles in public schools in these areas, the majority of students in
public schools comes from working-class families who have been living
around these areas. Similarly, if one looks at the student profiles of foreign
and/or private schools around these neighbourhoods, one can see that most
Networked Gentrification 89
of these students come from middle-class families. Students either pass an
exam or, in most cases, families agree to pay very high tuition fees to
secure their children a place in these schools.
In gentrified neighbourhoods, tensions in relations between people in
everyday life are externalised and considered as related to differences in
lifestyles or cultural differences. However, the continuing presence of “the
poor or low-income households” in these neighbourhoods is often
considered an obstacle, inasmuch as it is assumed to stymie increases in
property values. Properties owned by low- income families that cannot be
renewed or restored can cause tensions with other property owners living
in the same apartments or in neighbouring houses. Social capital and
social networks of gentrifiers make them visible actors of urban change.
However, disregarding social and economic inequalities, and class-based
capabilities and inequalities, can cause significant misapprehension about
urban processes. Although gentrifiers and their individual capabilities are
emphasised in gentrification research, one should recognize that urban
policies and other economic and social dynamics impact the gentrification
process. Gentrifiers are able to use their economic, cultural and social
capitals and social networks to compare, choose and invest in properties
and claim ownership of certain spaces. For this reason, they can acquire or
achieve advantageous positions in class relations through the claiming of
space. However, this class position is not a static, structural feature, which
in this respect may change within the context of the social dynamics.
Works Cited
Behar, C. & Pérouse J. F. 2006. “Sürecin Aktörleri, Bölüm 3.” In
İstanbul'da Soylulaştırma: Eski Kentin Yeni Sakinleri, eds. Behar, D.
& İslam T. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
Behar, D. & İslam T., eds. 2006. Istanbul'da Soylulaştırma: Eski Kentin
Yeni Sakinleri. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
Blokland, T. & Savage, M. 2008. “Social Capital and Networked
Urbanism.” In Networked Urbanism-Social Capital in the City, eds.
Talja Blokland & Mike Savage, 1-22. Aldershot: Ashgate.
—. 2003. Urban Bonds: Social Relationships in an Inner City
Neighbourhood, Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. 1985. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of
Taste, trans. Nice R., Cambridge: Routledge.
—. 1986, “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research
for the Sociology of Education, ed. Westport, J., 214–258. New York,
NY: Greenwood.
Chapter Four 90
—. 1990. Homo Academicus. California: Stanford University Press.
Bridge, G. 1995. “The Space for Class—On Class Analysis in the Study of
Gentrification.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20
(2): 236–247.
—. 2002. “The Neighbourhood and Social Networks.” Centre for
NeighbourhoodResearch Paper 4: 1–33.
—. 2003. “Time-Space Trajectories in Provincial Gentrification.” Urban
Studies 40 (12): 2545–2556.
Butler, T. 2002. “Thinking Global but Acting Local: the Middle Classes in
the City.” Sociological Research Online 7 (3).
—. 2007. “For gentrification?” Environment and Planning A 39 (1): 162.
Butler, T. & Robson, G. 2001. “Social Capital, Gentrification and
Neighbourhood Change in London: A Comparison of Three South
London Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 38 (12): 2145-2162.
—. 2003a. London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of
Inner London. New York, N.Y.: Berg.
—. 2003b. “Plotting the Middle Classes: Gentrification and Circuits of
Education in London.” Housing Studies 18 (1) (2003): 5–28.
Erden, D. 2009. “Haliç’te Dönüşüm ve Tarihsel Süreklilik.” Ottoman
Bank Archieve and Research Centre Seminar Paper. Istanbul: Osmanlı
Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi.
Glass, R. 1964. “Introduction to London: Aspects of Change.” Centre for
Urban Studies, London (reprinted in Glass, R. [1989] Clichés of Urban
Doom, 132–158). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hamnett, C. 1984. “Gentrification and Residential Location Theory: A
Review and Assessment.” Geography and The Urban Environment
Progress in Research and Applications, (6): 283-320, Wiley and Sons.
—. 1991, “The Blind Men and The Elephant: The Explanation of
Gentrification”, Transaction of The Institute of British Geographers,
(16) 173–189.
—. 1996, “Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare State
Regimes”, Urban Studies, 33 (8), 1407-1430.
—. 2000,”Gentrification, Post-industrialism, and Industrial and
Occupational Restructuring in Global Cities”, in: Bridge, G.; Watson,
S. (ed.) A Companion to the City, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 331–
341.
—. 2003, Unequal City: London in the Global Arena, Routledge: London
İlkuçan, A. 2004, Gentrification, Community and Consumption:
Constructing, Conquering and Contesting “The Republic of Cihangir“,
Master dissertation, Ankara: Bilkent University. Available online:
http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002485.pdf [accessed 10 May 2013].
Networked Gentrification 91
İslam, T. and Enlil, Z. 2006, “Evaluating the Impact of Gentrification on
Renter Local Residents: The Dynamics Of Displacement In Galata”,
Istanbul 42nd ISoCaRP Congress).
İnce, A. 2003, Kültür Endüstrisinde Aracıların Rolü ve Asmalımescit
Semtinin Değişen Yüzü (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul.
Keyder, Ç. 1992, “Istanbul'u Nasıl Satmalı?”, Istanbul, 3, 80–5.
—. 1999, Istanbul, Between the Global and the Local, Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Kocabaş, A. 2006, “Urban Conservation in Istanbul: Evaluation and Re-
conceptualisation”, Habitat International, 30 (1), 107–126.
Lees, L., Slater, T. and Wyly, E. 2008, Gentrification. London: Routledge
Ley, D. 1980, “Liberal ideology and the post-industrial city”, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, (70) 238–258.
—. 1994, “Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class”,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, (12), 53–74.
—. 1996, The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mills, A. 2006, “Boundaries of the Nation in the Space of the Urban:
Landscape and Social Memory in Istanbul”, Cultural Geographies, 13:
367–394.
Portes, A. 2000, Two meanings of Social Capital, Sociological Forum,
15:1.
Robins, K. and Aksoy, A. 1995, “Istanbul Rising: Returning the Repressed
to Urban Culture”, European Urban and Regional Studies, 2 (3), 223–
235.
—. 1996, “Istanbul Between Civilisation and Discontent”, City, 1, (5), 6-
33.
Rose, D. 1984, “Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven
Development of Marxist Urban Theory”, Environment and Planning
D, 1: 47–74.
Savage, M., Bagnall, G. and Longhurst, B. (2005). Globalization and
Belonging, London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Savage, M. 2008, “Histories, Belongings, Communities”, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (2), 151–162.
—. 2010, “The Politics of Elective Belonging”, Housing, Theory and
Society, 27 (2), 115–161.
Sen, B. 2006, Kentsel Gerilemeye Karşı Yeni Bir Strateji Olarak
Soylulaştırma: Galata Örneği, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, MSGSU,
Istanbul.
Smith, N. 1987, “Of Yuppies and Housing: Gentrification, Social
Restructuring, and the Urban Dream”, Environment and Planning D:
Chapter Four 92
Society and Space, 5 (2), 151–172.
—. 2002, “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global
Urban Strategy”, Antipode, 34 (3), 427–450.
Smith, N. and Williams, P. 1986, Gentrification of the City, London: Allen
and Unwin.
Soytemel, E. 2011, Gentrification and Belonging in Istanbul, unpublished
PhD Dissertation, The University of Manchester, Manchester.
Uzun, C. N. 2001, Gentrification in Istanbul: A Diagnostic Study, Utrecht,
KNAG/Faculteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen Universteit Utrecht
(Netherlands Geographical Studies No: 285).
Warde, A. 1991, “Gentrification as Consumption: Issues of Class and
Gender”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, (9), 223–
232.
Watt, P. 2008, “The Only Class in Town? Gentrification and the Middle-
class Colonization of the City and the Urban Imagination”, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32, (1), 206–211.
—. 2009, “Living in an oasis: middle-class disaffiliation and selective
belonging in an English suburb”, Environment and Planning A. 41 (12)
2874 – 2892.