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.