Akpinar, İ.Y., Dinçyürek, Ö., “Spatialisation of

Immigration In Nicosia: Tradition Interrogated”, IASTE conference, Oxford Brookes, UK, 12-15.12.2008; Center for Environmental Design Research, International Association of Traditional Environments, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements, University of California, Berkeley - working paper series, www.arch.berkeley.edu/research/iaste

SPATIALISATION OF IMMIGRATION IN

NICOSIA :: TRADITION INTERROGATED

Ipek YADA AKPINAR, ITU / EMU Faculty of

Architecture

Ozgür DİNÇYÜREK, EMU Faculty of

Architecture

ABSTRACT

In the last 30 years, with the aim of pursuing a

better life, immigrants from Turkey come to

Northern Cyprus, and are especially settled in

traditional neighborhoods in the walled city of

Nicosia - while the Greek part welcomed

certain number of immigrants from the

countries in the periphery. On one hand,

migration from Turkey to Northern Cyprus has

caused noticeable change of population and

the emergence of an invisible spatial border

between the migrants and locals effecting

urban daily life: the leisure, the work and

residential spaces of the locals and immigrants

have been segregated. On the other hand, the

change of social structure has been directly

reflected into the architectural structure. The

re-use of a one-family mansion by immigrant

families has transformed spatial organization

and the traditional identity by ad-hoc sub-

divisions. In other words, a large number of

immigrants have re-shaped traditional

architecture as well as urban identity in the

traditional built environment.

In 2004, in the a simultaneous vote in the

reunification of the divided island by the

Annan Plan, a United Nations (UN) proposal,

whilst the proposal was approved by Turkish

majority, the Greeks rejected. Despite their

rejection, the urban dynamics of the Turkish

part have been changed, and Nicosia has

become more globalized. In this context,

Northern Nicosia accommodates a series of

regeneration projects financially supported by

the UN, spatializing emerging tensions

between the ones who can be part of

globalization (locals) and who can not be

(immigrants) - divided by invisible borders.

What makes the Nicosia case worth to study is

its uniqueness as a political and social layers

as well as re-emergence of unification with the

outside world.

In this context, our study aims at investigating

the radical change in traditional houses

inhabited by immigrants as well as urban

transformation that arises as a result of the

encounter between immigrants and globalizing

locals. Focusing on the spatialization of

immigrants and locals, our study conducts

interviews in a traditional neighborhood

located in old city where UN projects have

been constructed. Interviews with immigrants

and locals underline different life styles,

expectations, new consumption patterns and

stereotypes against each other.

INTRODUCTION

Today, the making of space as a social product can

be detected as a common interest in the humanities

– where space is understood as a social entity with

particular, localized meanings. In this framework,

the island of Cyprus, located at the crossroads of

the East and the West, has always been a

destination of multi-cultural and multi-faith

migrations (Venetians, Ottomans, a co-existence of

Greeks and Turks with Armenians, Jews, Latins) –

where multi-layered identities have been reflected

through the built environment.1 However today,

Nicosia, the capital of Northern Cyprus, has been

often represented as the unique divided capital in

worldwide.

In 1960, after the proclamation of the Republic of

Cyprus based on two major communities following

the British colonial period, there had been a radical

turning point in 1974 due to the post-1960 bi-

communal conflicts, and two communities were

separated into two parts of the Island; Turkish

Cypriots to the North and Greek Cypriots to the

South.2 Since the division of the island into Greek

and Turkish parts, the isolation policies of the West

has been applied to the Turkish part, and, as a

result, Nicosia has been divided and the northern

part of the city (Turkish Cypriot) remained

introvert and homogenous – while the Greek part

of the city becomes integrated with the world.

Since then, the Cyprus issue has always been a

main determinant in the politics amongst Britain,

Greece, and Turkey as governor countries, and the

European Union (EU) - where the sociological,

cultural layers and identity issues have been often

neglected.

In the meantime, in the last 30 years, with the aim

of pursuing a better life, a large number of

transnational3 migrants from Turkey have arrived

to Northern Cyprus (TRNC - Turkish Republic of

Northern Cyprus). Some of the transnational

migrants are settled in traditional neighborhoods of

the walled city of Nicosia - reshaping the urban

pattern, social structure, as well as re-defining the

architectural features of traditional houses by ad-

hoc sub-divisions. Consequently, migration from

Turkey to Northern Cyprus has caused extreme

change of population, effecting urban daily life and

has paved way to the emergence of an invisible

spatial border between the migrants and locals: in

the last 30 years, the spaces of consumption, the

work and residential spaces of the locals and

migrants have been segregated.

With the winds of global changes in the political,

social and economic flows combined by urban

fragmentation4, the period following the fall of the

Berlin wall in 1989 as well as the referendum of

the Annan Plan5 in 2004, in Cyprus, the potential of

the social dynamics has accelerated.6 In 2004, in a

simultaneous vote in the reunification of the

divided island by the Annan Plan, a United Nations

proposal, whilst the proposal received a 65%

favorable vote from the Turkish community, the

Greek Cypriot community rejected the by over

75%. Despite the rejection of the Annan Plan by

the Greeks, in the last four years, the urban

dynamics of the northern part have been changed,

and following Turkish and European investments,

Northern Cyprus has witnessed a series of radical

transformations in economic, urban, social and

political fields.7 In this context, an outstanding

social and economic mobility has been

accompanied by speculative construction boom

accelerated with the land speculation.8 In this

context, combined with the winds of globalization

and re-unification, Northern Nicosia accommodates

spatialization of both transnational migration and

emerging globalization for a possible re-united

political, social and urban future through a joint

master plan. On one hand, the formulation of the

Nicosia Master Plan has been a significant

achievement, a ground-breaking, bi-communal

template for the city's revitalization.9 In the

transition process following the referendum of the

Annan Plan, on the other hand, the city has

welcomed a series of the UNDP renovation

projects in the walled city, a wide number of

infrastructure implementation – following the ones

supported by Turkey.

A normal interpretation would be that the Master

Plan has been a political tool for a possible re-

unification between two parts of the island. While

we are not denying this, we are also suggesting that

it must also be seen with its crucial effect on the

urban identity as well as individuals. We argue that

the Master Plan, combined with the new projects,

has paved way for the visualization of spatial and

social segregation in the walled city of Nicosia: the

distinctions of who can be part of globalization

(locals) and who cannot be (migrants) have become

obvious. The master plan combined by a series of

regeneration projects supported by the UN/EU at

the urban centre also visualizes the spatialization of

emerging conflicts between the locals and the

migrants - divided by invisible borders in Northern

Nicosia. In other words, in the urban core of the

walled city, the new projects have made visible the

spatial and social segregation between the locals

and the transnational migrants. The question is

whether the urban regeneration may be footsteps of

an urban gentrification in the walled city. In this

framework, what makes the Nicosia case worth to

study is its uniqueness as a political and social

layers as well as emergence of unification with the

outside world.

In this context, our study aims at investigating the

radical change in traditional stone houses inhabited

by migrants as well as urban transformation that

arises as a result of the encounter between migrants

and globalizing locals in the walled city of Nicosia.

Focusing on the spatialization of the ones who can

be part of globalization and who cannot be, our

study conducts a set of interviews in depth in a

traditional neighborhood located in the centre of

the walled city of Nicosia where the UN/EU

projects have been constructed. A set of interviews

with the migrants (inhabitants in the walled city)

working for the locals (former inhabitants of the

walled city and inhabitants of the modern part of

Nicosia) in Northern Nicosia underlines different

life styles, different expectations, new consumption

patterns as well as stereotypes against each other.

At first, an urban history and ethnic social structure

have been introduced. Secondly, the joint master

plan combined with revitalization projects prepared

in its framework has been presented. Thirdly, the

socio-economic transformation of the built

environment and its impacts on the daily life of the

transnational Turkish migrants in the walled city

has been discussed. Finally, concluding remarks

are briefly given.

Our study may give a broader understanding of the

transformation of traditional architecture and the

traditional built environment in Northern Nicosia

within the social and political contexts, and may

identify emerging socio-political identities and

differences in the Eastern Mediterranean region in

general. Exploring arguments and debates in the

context of recent academic researches on migration

and cultural transformation, our paper provides a

critical commentary on contemporary political and

cultural issues between Turkey and Northern

Cyprus, and gives a broader understanding of the

Cyprus issue in the light of changing social and

political contexts. Our experimental study is an

initial step of an on-going research, where

empirical data is going to be added in the following

steps. To tell the story of recent spatialization in the

Northern Cyprus is not as simple as it might seem.

Since the principal accounts of the process are

rapidly changing, our study is still far from being

complete. While our present study contributes to

tell the story of the emerging urban identities, its

findings occur within a debate that is rapidly

developing at the present, and in which all

conclusions appear provisional.

NICOSIA, A DIVIDED CAPITAL: AN

URBAN HISTORY

For the social structure, Morley and Robins have

eloquently written on the diversity and cultural

richness of the cosmopolitan imperial cities.10

Nicosia, capital of Cyprus, exemplifies this with a

multi-ethnic character throughout its existence. In

terms of location, the capital of the islands is

always the coastal city. For the last ten centuries,

Nicosia, a multi-faith capital (Venetians, Ottomans,

a co-existence of Greeks and Turks with

Armenians, Jews, Latins, Maronites) has been an

exception in the Mediterranean Sea.11

During the

reign of various cultures, the walled city as the core

of Nicosia spatializes the multi-ethnic existence as

well as bi-communal experience of the Republic of

Cyprus with its socio-economic and cultural layers.

In this regard, the walled city of Nicosia exhibits a

unique synthesis of the successive physical

accumulations of different powers including

Byzantine, Frankish, Venetian, Ottoman, British

Colonial and Post-colonial periods. In its multi-

cultural history, Cyprus and its capital Nicosia had

witnessed the wealthiest period by the Lusignan

Rule as a result of its geo-strategical location in the

Mediterranean basin.12

Today, the traces of the

richness in the form of palaces and cathedrals

reveal the Gothic heritage of the Lusignan period.13

Besides the Gothic landmarks, medieval character

of the city was mainly structured by courtyard

houses, narrow organic streets, large public squares

and gardens. Although the city was composed of

streets, defined with building blocks and walls of

private gardens, there were also large uninhabited

areas partially utilized as public gardens.14

Considering the security needs for protecting the

prosperity of Nicosia, the idea of fortified city was

initiated. Before the sack of Nicosia by the

Genoese in 1373, Nicosia was walled for the first

time.15

Although some records indicate that

fortification was built by the Byzantines, it is

commonly known that the first foundation of the

city walls was built by Lusignans. However, the

existing traditional walled city, where our survey

has been focused in the next part, has been initiated

as a military castle by the Venetians (1498-1571)

for the same strategic necessities16

who utilized the

island as a base for their fleet against the increasing

Ottoman threat as well as a revenue from the

Levantine trade routes. In this context, Nicosia was

one of the first examples of the Renaissance style

castle in worldwide. During the construction of the

castle, the Renaissance ideal city plan was not

proposed and the existing medieval pattern was

kept in the city. Only the militaristic structures such

as fortifications, bastions and moats were

developed according to the functional, spatial and

structural requirements of the advanced

Renaissance artillery. In this regard, the Venetian

walls were consisted of eleven bastions in perfect

circular geometric locations and with only three

gates. Accordingly, one of the important definers of

the city borders had changed its symbolic and

consequent architectural characteristics, gaining a

militaristic image and a Renaissance mask to the

city. Today, in Nicosia, the Renaissance style walls

with medieval urban structure still remain

distinctive amongst the other Renaissance cities of

Europe.

Following the conquest of Ottomans in 1571,

Venetian supporters and a large amount of Latin

population (the royal family members,

administrators, officers and their servants, in

particular) who were largely settled in the Nicosia,

left the island. Consequently, a large number of

houses and farms became vacant. In this respect, in

order to recreate former prosperity of the island and

to rebuilt naturally and artificially deteriorated and

abundant cities, the Ottoman administration had

transferred people from Anatolia (today, the Asiatic

part of Turkey). Hence, the demographic structure

of the island had undergone radical changes.

During the reign of Ottomans (1571-1878), local

inhabitants who wanted to stay in the island were

allowed to keep their properties, maintain their

businesses, and practice their own religion.

Muslims and non-Muslims (Greek Cypriots,

Armenians, Maronites and Jews) lived together in

the city and in the Island. In the multi-ethnic

coexistence, “Ottoman law and practice classified

people by their religion. The Muslims were treated

as a single community”.17

In this framework, non-

Muslim communities had rights to live together

with Muslims in the same city, the neighborhood

and the street. Despite the physical proximity

amongst the communities, each ethnic group had

its own culture and there was a little

intermingling.18

In the traditional urban structure of

the walled city, the ethnic neighborhoods have

been usually formed around the churches for

Orthodox Greek Cypriots and around mosques for

Muslim Turkish Cypriots. Following the

administrative structure of the Ottomans, in their

heterogeneous class composition, the ethnic-

religious mahalle included ten or fifteen streets at

most, sometimes grouped around a square, a

mosque and/or a church, one or two public

fountains, a public bath, a religious school and a

few shops. In this urban pattern, the rich and the

poor had been living side by side, as the main

characteristic of the urban structure. (In this social

structure, proximity to the master pieces as well as

the material used for the house could have been a

sign indicating the income level of the inhabitant).

In this structure, by the emergence of new elements

of Ottoman architecture (minarets, domes, and

cumbas) into the city, the silhouette and the pattern

of medieval Nicosia have been transformed to

medieval-Ottoman synthesis. Building activity in

Cyprus had been an extension of traditional

methods, materials, tools and organizations -

carrying similar characteristics of the ones as in

Anatolia while preserving the previous

architectural and urban structure – contributing to

the architectural and urban character of the island.

Pure sandstone ground floor of these houses was

reconstructed and was generally added a new mud

brick or timber floor. As a result, houses had been

adapted to the Turkish way of life and reflected

Turkish architectural characteristics. In this regard,

traditional building materials and construction

methods had survived on both new and existing

buildings of Nicosia.19

In this regard, the urban

fabric and the street pattern had been defined a

well-balanced, yet low dense, organization of

houses with gardens and orchards in the whole

extension of the Walled City around the religious

ensembles including government buildings,

schools, hans, hamams (traditional motel and

traditional bath), and a well defined commercial

area.20

In the multi-ethnic urban structure, in short,

Nicosia had features of a Mediterranean and

Middle Eastern city.21

In the multi-layered urban structure, during the

British colonial period (1878-1960), the walled city

had been the core of the administration as well as

the urban life. On one hand, this had practical

reasons; on the other hand this indicated that the

new rulers had taken over. In this context, a new

system of administration, transportation, economy,

lifestyle and other technical matters had been

introduced. The British rule coincided with the

most prosperous period of the United Kingdom –

as an advantage of the island for the new

investments in different fields. Consequently, new

type of organizations, authorities, institutions and

services had been established in the city. In this

framework, the foundation of royal railways,

introduction of electricity, and distribution of the

motorways networks through the island had been

the primary technical development of the colonial

period.22

Moreover, due to the necessities of the

introduction of the vehicular traffic and the public

transportation, the city walls had been opened up

by gates for vehicular traffic by the colonial

administration. Accordingly, the transportation

network of the medieval city had been changed,

connecting the walled city to the outside centers,

harbors and inland communication. Furthermore,

new building types and urban scheme had been

generated as a result of changes of lifestyle and the

way of doing daily requirements. With the

contribution of the new functions, the new building

forms and architectural styles had been introduced

to the built environment as well as new districts

had been implemented at the outside of the city

walls - independently organized from their

architectural and urban restrictions.23

The main determinant of the spatial differentiation

of the urban structure had been ethnic/ religious -

continuing during the British colonial period as

well as the Republic of Cyprus. 24

In this regard, a

list prepared by the British administration denotes

the 25 neighborhoods and their ethnic majorities in

the physical and social units in the Walled City of

Nicosia (Fig.1).25

In 1960, the Republic of Cyprus, based on two

major communities (Greeks and Turks) was

proclamated. In the Republic, the co-existence of

the communities continued only for three years.

Due to the increase of bi-communal conflicts and

clashes, the capital was physically separated by the

establishment of the ‘Green Line’ in 1963 –

practically dividing the capital between Greek and

Turkish Cypriots.26

Following the intervention of

Turkey, the Green Line has been converted into the

UN-controlled Buffer Zone in 1974. In this respect,

the walled city of Nicosia has found itself on the

route of the borderline between the two quarters.

Remarkable equilibrium in the division of the

Venetian walls has to be emphasized. Equally, 5 ½

bastions of the city walls and half of the market

line of the walled city have been separately owned

by the communities. Following this, de-

centralization has been occurred in both parts

where the Buffer Zone has become a ‘border’ in the

centre of the walled city. Since the division of

Nicosia, the northern part of the city (Turkish

Cypriot) has remained introvert and homogenous -

while the Greek part becomes integrated with the

world. With the physical division of the city, social

and economical differences have become visible

between the two majorities, reflecting the

quantitative and qualitative features of the building

activities. Following the separation of the

communities in the northern and southern parts of

Nicosia, urban and architectural developments have

been individually implemented. Although both

communities have recovered their economies, and

accelerated the construction activities, the increase

of the number of high building blocks in the

southern part has represented the dominancy of the

Greek economy.

Following the division, in terms of demographic

change, in the northern part of the walled city

(Turkish Cypriot part), on one hand, Greek

Cypriots left their houses located around churches;

on the other hand, Turkish Cypriots moved towards

the ‘modern’ districts of the city – outside of the

walls. In this regard, the empty stone houses have

been given and/or rented to the transnational

migrants from Turkey – who have radically re-

shaped the traditional spatial organization as well

as urban identity by ad-hoc sub-divisions. In terms

of urban pattern, the Green Line/Buffer Zone

radically cuts the walled city into two parts,

creating dead-end streets along itself – blocked by

deteriorated barricades.27

In this context, the

conflict between the Greek and Turkish

communities has made the border line dramatically

obvious with the armed soldiers watching the

buffer zone.

Today, the dominant role of the country has started

gradually to be eroded not only by globalization,

but also by regional bodies such as the EU.

Moreover, the growing emphasis on local identities

– often with long standing ethnic, cultural and

historical roots – leads to pressure for

decentralization.28

In this context, the division of

the last 30 years has been central to the ongoing

urban problems, restricting development and

creating complex problems for future planning.

Despite the physical division by the Buffer Zone

combined by continuing political uncertainties,

efforts have being made on both sides to revitalize

Nicosia in an integrated fashion.29

Combined with

the winds of globalization and re-unification,

Northern Nicosia accommodates spatialization of

both transnational migration and emerging

globalization for a possible re-united political,

social and urban future. On one hand, the

formulation of the Nicosia Master Plan has been a

significant achievement, a ground-breaking and bi-

communal template for urban revitalization.30

In

the transition process following the referendum of

the Annan Plan, on the other hand, the city has

welcomed a series of the UNDP renovation

projects - a wide number of infrastructure

implementation in the walled city. The next part

introduces the joint Master Plan, the regeneration

projects and their physical and social effects.

THE MASTER PLAN AND THE UNDP

PROJECTS

The redevelopment of the walled city through a

joint Master Plan provides a significant example of

‘collaborative’ and/or ‘communicative’ planning in

a context of crucial politics.31

In this regard, the

Nicosia Master Plan, on one hand, has become a

symbol for “an extraordinary effort in bi-communal

co-operation”.32

On the other hand, the Master Plan

is also an initial step towards a sustainable urban

planning in Cyprus. The challenge of the Master

Plan is that “it goes beyond traditional, more or less

reactive, urban development controls. Rather, it

relies on the initiative of the public sector to

actively shape the future direction of the city.”33

In

this framework, in 1979, Lellos Demetriades and

Mustafa Akinci, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish

Cypriot mayors of Nicosia, respectively, had taken

an essential municipal tool, a master plan, and had

come together under the auspices of UNDP to

initiate a new pace for a joint planning activity for

the urban development.34

They declared:

"We are not going to solve the Cyprus problem, but

we are building bridges. They are always useful. I

wish more were being built by others “(Lellos

Demetriades Representative of the Greek Cypriot

Community of Nicosia)35

"We know certain parts of the Master Plan can only

be realized when an overall solution to the Cyprus

problem is achieved. But for a realistic, viable and

lasting solution, it is necessary to establish areas of

co-operation between the two sides. The Nicosia

Master Plan is one of the very rare instances of such

co-operation. It is for this reason that we look

forward to the implementation stage of this unique

exercise. Iet us begin. . . . Who knows? The

beginning may prove to take us halfway along the

path." (Mustafa Akinci, Representative of the

Turkish Cypriot Community of Nicosia)36

While recognizing the substantial barriers to

reunifying a divided city, Akinci and Demetriades

have shown how creating a master plan is both a

pragmatic response to the present situation and a

hope for the future.37

In this regard, an

experimental bridge has been formed between the

two Cypriot communities, and the master plan has

paved the way for some cooperation in a

community literally split by distrust and

animosity.38

In the Nicosia Master Plan, a bi-

communal team of experts (planners, architects,

sociologists, economists) have projected two urban

scenarios for a sustainable urban development of

the capital: Nicosia with and without a buffer zone.

The projections have been flexible to be adaptable

to both cases and meet new demands and

emergences with changing political circumstances

in a divided city/island.39

Started in 1981 and

completed in 1984, the Master Plan introduces a

comprehensive policy - as new planning criteria in

Cyprus.40

In other words, the Master Plan identifies

a set of planning policies - controlling the urban

growth on both sides – as a fundamental problem

of planning.41

The measurements as well as

recording have been completed as the first step.

Since then, in both parts, some additional revisions

as well as amendments have been independently

developed.42

Started at 1984, the second phase had

been completed in 1985. In 1984, focusing on the

walled city located in the core of two parts as well

as the business and shopping areas in its close

surroundings, the second phase of the master plan

has been initiated, and, a landscape project for the

regeneration of the buffer zone43

has been proposed

by a group of technicians from both sides.44

During

this process, a detailed operational plan has been

projected for Nicosia (Fig2.). From 1987 onwards,

the joint discussions have concentrated on a

rehabilitation strategy for the historic centre of

Nicosia. Particular attention has been paid to a

series of integrated priority investment projects,

which have constituted a common tool for

implementation of a comprehensive planning

policy.45

Priority has been given to two special area

schemes along the deteriorated areas of the Buffer

Zone (Chrysaliniotissa in the south and Arab

Ahmet in the north)46

(Fig.3). Both have been

planned to act as early implementation schemes

and to help in identifying a feasible implementation

strategy of wider application. Two special projects

have been planned to support ‘a new life’ into the

‘dying’ centre of the walled city and to restore it

with reference to its ancient history”.47

In other

words, the architectural and urban regeneration

projects have been designed to maximize impact

and encourage social and cultural continuity. In this

context, the main target has been to replace the

image of a ‘dead museum’ into a ‘living city’. In

this regard, the Master Plan, combined by a series

of the UNDP renovation projects, has been

successful in reversing the city’s physical and

economic decline. The architectural restoration and

the reuse as the catalyst for improvement to the

quality of life on both sides completed in 2004, the

whole city has benefited from the urban

improvements.48

And, as a result, in 2007, the

Nicosia Master Plan project has been awarded the

world’s largest architectural award - the Aga Khan

Award for Architecture.

In terms of urban planning, the Master Plan has

been an extraordinary tool for sustainable urban

development of the divided capital. Moreover, the

following regeneration projects have contributed to

the preservation of multi-ethnic cultural and

architectural heritage.

In northern Nicosia, however, with the winds of re-

unification, the Master Plan and its regeneration

projects have also raised questions about the

presence of transnational migrants. In the making

of a new Master Plan and its regeneration projects,

to what extent the presence of transnational

migrants have been considered? In terms of social

structure, the Master Plan, combined with the new

projects, has made the presence of the transnational

migrants from Turkey visible to the former

inhabitants of the traditional built environment who

have started to re-use the traditional public open

spaces. In other words, through the new public

open spaces, the Turkish Cypriots who have been

living in the modern parts of Nicosia have come

back to the public open spaces in the traditional

core. In this regard, the urban transformation

through the Master plan combined with the projects

has paved way for the visualization of spatial and

social segregation in the walled city of Nicosia: the

distinctions of who can be part of globalization and

who cannot be have become obvious. In other

words, in the urban core of the walled city, the new

projects have made visible the spatial and social

segregation between the locals (Turkish Cypriots)

and the transnational migrants from Turkey – in the

walled city in particular. In this framework, the

urban regeneration has been thus a tool to

problematize the presence of the transnational

migrants in the walled city. The new urban and

architectural projects have become a medium to re-

question the presence of the migrants as well as to

re-think/re-consider on the Turkish Cypriot

identity/Cypriot identity. In this context, it is

important to mention that the UNDP projects have

raised a new position not only in the cities but also

in the rural areas: the UNDP projects are

encouraging the re-development of traditional rural

settlements supporting the ‘Cypriot’ culture. It is in

this context that it is questionable to what extent

the Master Plan and the new architectural and

urban projects may play a crucial role in the

gentrification/elitization of the built environment in

the walled city of Northern Nicosia.

SURVEY :: Transnational migrants in the

walled city

In our study, the new pedestrianized area in the

heart of the walled city is selected as a survey area

to conduct a set of interviews in depth. The

pedestrianization has been proposed as part of the

joint master plan and has been implemented by the

contribution of the UNDP. The survey area has

been of primary importance due its socio-cultural

and symbolic importance in its history. Dominating

the silhouette of the city, the main mosque

(formerly a cathedral) is located in the centre of the

area, situated in a close proximity to the borderline

in between the communities (also close to the

unique border gate within the walled city which

was opened in April 2nd

, 2008 after 45 years).

In our survey area (Fig.4), it is important to

mention that the transnational migrants from

Turkey are not a homogenous group – in contrary,

a cultural diversity has been observed (they are

mainly from Iskenderun, Mardin, and Adiyaman

and from Eastern parts of Turkey). Even in the case

they come from different provinces, migrants

prefer not to mention the eastern provinces

indicating the Kurdish origin as well as their Alevi

identity – heterodoxy of Islam49

. In the migration

pattern of Turkey, it is generally the young, single

men in their early twenties, who first ventures to

the island.50

A new citizen type and a new physical

environment are to emerge in Northern Cyprus.

First of all, whenever a migrant comes, his

relatives, friends and people from his village follow

him, and recreate their ‘own village’ in the same

building or in a close neighborhood - a social event

described as ‘chain migration’.51

This has been the

result of close family ties and local relations of the

rural Turkish community: migrants show a direct

and close relation with the community they were

born in.52

The migrants that we have interviewed in Nicosia

are settled in the residential neighborhoods located

around the mosques –converted from churches by

the Ottomans. The district has hosted, on one hand,

a series of master pieces surrounded by traditional

stone architecture, on the other hand, a series of

‘hybrid’53

forms developed in an ad-hoc process. In

terms of architecture, three main typologies co-

exist in the district: traditional Ottoman-Turkish

house (mostly earth and timber extension in the

upper floor to the existing Latin stone house),

British colonial cut-stone house, modest adobe

house – similar to the examples of the rural areas

(Fig.5, 6, 7).

HOUSE 1. A British colonial house – an extrovert

stone mansion with balcony located at the main

square of the district, facing the Selimiye Mosque.

The house directly faces the new urban

regeneration projects – a new public open place

around the Selimiye mosque. The conversion of a

historical building into an upscale

Portuguese/Spanish restaurant (SABOR) has

started to welcome the inhabitants of the modern

districts towards the walled city.

Following the migration of their relatives to the

neighborhood 8 years ago, an Alevi family with

three kids from Adiyaman (a south-eastern

province of Turkey) is settled in the house. Their

grand-mother and their grand-father also joined

them to live in the house. In this regard, the

mansion has been enlarged through ad-hoc and

‘hybrid’ enlargements. The father of the family

works as a lorry driver. His wife goes to the

cleaning to the house of the Turkish Cypriots,

living at the modern districts out of the walled city.

All kids go to the school. They do not have

neighborhood relations with the surrounding Sunni

families whereas they keep close relations with

Alevi families and relatives from Adiyaman.

HOUSE 2. A British colonial house – an introvert

stone mansion, is located at the periphery of the

Buffer Zone, in other words, a dead-end street,

providing a secure play-ground for the kids of the

families. The house is inhabited by a family from

Reyhanli-Hatay (a traditional province at the south-

east known as the centre of three religions). The

family has arrived 21 years ago to the island, and

has been living in the house in the last 12 years.

The owner of the house is Turkish Cypriot family

living in Dereboyu – an upper-income modern part

of Northern Nicosia. The family with five kids has

been adapted to the traditional architecture as well

as built environment. They feel attached to the

house, and keep up the annual maintenance –

usually spending a large amount of money for the

house. The family runs a small scale business: in

the next building, they have a small-scale pension

for temporary bachelor male workers from Turkey

working in the low-paid service sector as well as

constructions. Their kids go to the school. They

have good neighborhood relations with the

surrounding families – Sunni and/or Alevi.

HOUSE 3. A modest adobe house inhabited by a

low-income family, recently migrated from

Iskenderun. The father has arrived four years ago

and has been working in the construction sector.

His wife and his two of his four children have

joined him in a modern adobe house in the walled

city, located very close to the architectural master

pieces as well as hybrid formations (in terms of

forms as well as functions). The youngest son is

studying in a Cypriot university. Following her

divorce, his daughter has joined them with her kid.

What makes their situation crucial is that they are

settled in the middle of service sector of the

district, mainly dominated by male workers from

Mardin, a south-eastern province in Turkey. They

have no relation neither with the other migrants nor

the locals. They suffer both from the space they

live in and the surrounding people.

With a dream of pursuing a better life, migrants

look for a higher income as well as a better

education for their kids since they are much better

paid comparing to Turkey. The new or temporal

comers work for the booming construction sector,

and their wives go to the cleaning. Some work at

the low-paid service sector; some set up their own

small scale business in the service sector. They

regularly send money to their relatives living in

Turkey. The recent comers neither feel attached to

the island nor to the city whereas the former ones

have been adopted to their traditional mansion as

well as to the built environment. Migrants do not

have neighborhood relations with Turkish Cypriots

living out of the walled city. None of the migrant

families use the recently implemented touristic

spaces.

A large number of migrants have re-shaped

traditional architecture as well as urban identity in

the built environment as part of a process of

‘hybridization’. The transnational migrants’

neighborhood has been converted into a ‘hybrid’

space with ‘in-between’ identity.54

In this regard,

the emergence of social mobility has reshaped the

traditional neighborhood, that can be re-defined as

an ‘in-between’ space - “social, cultural, national

transformation space”55

. With geometry of

marginalization of identities, ‘in-between’ is a

struggle place. She argues that ‘in-between spaces’

are shaped around ‘in-between’ identities, and that

this is a process in the formation of the globalizing

city, bringing urban fragmentation accompanied by

urban segregation between the locals and

transnational migrants – a process that we call the

formation of ‘in-between’ identities and their

‘hybrid’ spatialisation. In this framework, although

social mobility combined with urban fragmentation

and hybridization has been negatively perceived in

Northern Cyprus, in the globalised period, it is also

possible to read the new social dynamics through

Castell’s theory on the ‘space of flows’56

. Urban

and social mobility reflecting the flow, the transfer

and share of knowledge, information, and people,

has been an indispensable future. Conceptions of

spaces as the products of flows, networks have

become influential both in geography and across

social sciences.57

In this context, the social mobility

and space of flows have re-defined new positions

in Northern Cyprus (Famagusta, Nicosia, and

Kyrenia, in particular): trans-national migration

and its dynamics, and new cultural experiences

have been not only reflected into the daily life, but

also created economic dichotomies and the

confrontation of the ‘local identity’ and the

‘other’.58

In the context of transnational migration

from Turkey to Northern Cyprus, the Cyprus

conflict can be problematized as a ‘being-in-

between’ issue, not only between Greek and

Turkish parts, but also Turkish and Turkish Cypriot

parts.59

Our experimental case study exemplifies

this.

To sum up, the recent implementation of projects

has paved way for the return of the locals for social

occasions to the traditional built environment.

Apart from the existing political framework of the

division, the encounter of the locals and the

transnational migrants raise new social and cultural

issues for the future of the city. In this context, the

new Master Plan and its surrounding architectural

and urban regeneration projects have physicalized

the process of a possible political re-unification in

the divided walled city of Nicosia. However, the

political and physical re-unification process should

not ignore the presence of a large number of

transnational migrants. To what extent the urban

regeneration is benefit for the low-income migrant

residents? Or are urban regeneration projects

footsteps of an urban gentrification in close future?

What happens with the urban regeneration projects

is that the locals have now concern about the

migrant users, but unable to find a solution on the

emerging issue of gentrification. Given the fact that

the implemented projects have been focused on

tourism/touristic investments, a possible

introduction of education-culture-oriented

regeneration projects may pave way for a

sustainable environment - including the inhabitants

of the walled city in the last 30 years.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 H.Pulhan, I.Numan, “The Transitional Space in the Traditional Urban Settlement of Cyprus”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22, 2, 2005, pp.160-178. And, Ö.O.Türker, H.Pulhan, “Hyper-Cypriot Architecture: The Transformation of Local and Global Values”, 2005-2006 Working Paper Series, 196, Global Transformations and Local Traditions, the Tenth Conference of IASTE, Bangkok, Thailand 15th–18.12.2006. Also I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, “ ‘Being in-between’: re-reading Turkish and Turkish Cypriot identities”, Girne American University, IASS-AIS sub auspicies Conference, 25-26-27.04.2008 2 The capital had already been divided in 1963. But, since the official division of the island into Greek and Turkish parts in 1974 following the Turkish military intervention based on the constitutional governorship, the isolation policies of the West has been applied to the Turkish part, and, as a result, the island has been divided. And, Turkey had been applied severe economic and political embargo. See Ö.O.Türker, Ö.Dinçyürek, “Learning from Traditional Environments: Cyprus on the Threshold of Becoming a Unified Country and a Member of European Union”. XXXII. IAHS World Conference on Housing-Sustainability of the Housing Projects, Trento, September 21-25, 2004 (CD-ROM). 3 Transnational’ refers to communities made up of individuals or groups, settled in different national societies, sharing common interests and references and using transnational networks to consolidate solidarity beyond national boundaries. See T.Faist, “Transnational Social spaces out of international migration: evolution, significance and future prospects”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 39(2), 1998, pp.215-247. Geographical proximity combined with historical ties gives rise rather to a trans-border community linking the country of origin to the country of settlement. R.Kastoryano, “Settlement, transnational communities and

citizenship”, International Social Science Journal. 165/2000. Unesco. 4 The interpretation on ‘fragmented city’ has been based on the discussions at the international platforms entitled Beyond Boundaries: From Fragmentation towards Integration, (EMU-Famagusta, 2005) and Istanbul Fragmented (ITU-Istanbul, 2005), a parallel theoretical activity of the 9th Istanbul Biennale. 5 The plan was placed before the two communities in a simultaneous vote in the reunification referendum of 24 April 2004. Whilst the proposal received a 65% favorable vote from the Turkish community, the Greek Cypriot community rejected it by over 75%. 6 ‘Globalization from below’ can be a source for a more equal world, in which economic and social change does not mean exclusion and impoverishment. And, migration inevitably leads to greater ethno-cultural diversity within countries, transforming identities and blurring traditional boundaries. S.Castles, “Globalization and Migration: some pressing contradictions”, Int. Social Science Journal, 156/1998 UNESCO 1998, p.179. 7 With the Agreement of the Custom Union between the EU-Turkey (1995), Turkey has started to show up the monetary support to N. Cyprus (annually average is 300-350 million USD). Besides, there is a budget of technical support transferred by the Turkish Embassy in N. Nicosia – for a wide number of infrastructure implementation. See I.Y. Akpınar, “Kuzey Kıbrıs’taki yoğun yapılaşma üzerinden spekülatif bir okuma denemesi (1)”. www.arkitera.com, 25.01.2007. Moreover, a Partnership For the Future –PFF has been initiated by the EU and projected through the UN Development Programme, UNDP, with the aim of the development of the infrastructure. Its main target is the rapprochement of the N.Cyprus to the EU, www.undp-unops-pff.org, “An initiative of the UNDP Program Partnership for the Future” and M.Fasli, N.Ş.Paşaoğulları, B.V. Oktay, I.Y. Akpınar, “Avrupa Birliği kalkınma fonu kapsamında ‘Gelecek için Ortaklık’ Projeleri: Lefkoşa”, Int. 18th Urban Design symposium, MSGSÜ, 19-20.05.2007. 8 I.Y.Akpınar, www.arkitera.com, 25.01.2007. 9 D.Oktay, “An Analysis and Review of the divided city of Nicosia, New perspectives”. Geography. 92/ 3, 2007, pp.134-147. 10 D.Morley, K.Robins. Spaces of Identity, Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. (London: Routlegde, 1995). 11 Together with Madagascar, Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, has been an exception in worldwide. S.Diaz-Berio, “Urban Conservation, Nicosia Master Plan, unpublished report, UNDP, UNCHS, Nicosia. 1982, p.3. 12 After the fall of Acre, which was the last place in Syria lost by the Christians, Cyprus had become the only Christian country left in the Eastern Mediterranean.

13 C. Enlart, Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus. (London:Trigraph, 1987). 14 I.Numan, H.Pulhan, Ö.Dincyurek, “Culture as a Determinant of Identity of the Two Walled Cities of Cyprus”, Proceedings of World Congress on Environmental Design for the New Millenium, Yonsei University, 2000, pp.534-41. Here p.534. 15 Der G. Parthog, Byzantine and Medieval Cyprus, A guide to monuments. (New Barnet: International Publications,Tophill Advertising and Promotions Ltd. 1994), p.176. 16 G.Hill, A History of Cyprus, Vol. I, II, III, IV. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 17 A.Mango, Atatürk (London: John Murray, 1999), p.8. 18 H.Pulhan, “Analysis of Solid-Void Relationships as a Design and Organization Principle in the Traditional Houses of Nicosia”, Unpublished Master Thesis, EMU, Famagusta, 2002, p.95. And R.Jennings, Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571-1640. (New York: New York UP, 1993), p.29. 19 I.Numan, H.Pulhan, Ö.Dincyurek, 2000. 20 I.Numan, S.Onal, N.Doratli, “The Reflection of the Social Changes in the Physical and Functional Form of the Walled City of Nicosia”. Architecture and Planning Journal, 1996, 19-26. Here p.23. 21 For the traditional spatial organization as well as architectural features, see H.Pulhan, I.Numan, 2005. 22 I.Numan, H.Pulhan, Ö.Dincyurek, 2000, pp.534-41. Here 538. 23 Until the British period, there were no official buildings (post offices, train stations, telegraph offices). Moreover, Samanbahce, row houses of Walled City, was a typical example of mass housing developments in terms of urban approaches of the period. 24 The urban structure had been different in Famagusta where the Muslims lived in the walled city and the Greeks in the Maras district. The British colonial administration had been located between the two zones, radically emphasizing the division of the communities. 25 H.Pulhan, 2002:95. See A. L. Salvator, Levkosia-The Capital of Cyprus (Surrey: The Newdigate, 1982), p.9. 26 Researchers also indicate the beginning of the practical division of the two communities during the colonial period in the mid-1950s. See D.Oktay, 2007:134-147 and N.Doratli “Nicosia The Last Divided City of Europe’, Open House International, Vol.27 No.4, 57-70 (2002). 27 N.Doratli, 2002. 28 I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, 2008 29 D.Oktay, 2007, pp.134-147. 30 D.Oktay, 2007, pp.134-147. 31 Recent studies, seeking to democratize planning practice and empower communities through communication, indicate ‘collaborative planning’ in the UK and as ‘communicative planning’ in the USA. See P.Healey, Collaborative Planning Shaping Places in

Fragmented Societies (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1997). And for communicative planning, see J.Forester. Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1989). And his Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism (New York, State University of New York Press,1993). For a counter analysis, see T.Richardson. “Foucauldian discourse: power and truth in urban and regional policy making”, European Planning Studies, 4(3), 1996, pp.279–292. 32 www.nicosiamasterplan.org. 33 www.nicosiamasterplan.org. 34 In fact, the two men began practically working together in 1978 to implement a joint sewerage project which was successfully achieved - leading them to a joint Master Plan. 35 UNDP, 1987:1. 36 UNDP, 1987:1. 37 Since 1981, with the support of the UNDP representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot community have met weekly in the UN Buffer Zone at Ledra Palace Hotel – to discuss the practical agenda rather than political issues. L.Demetriades, “The Nicosia Master Plan, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 8(2), 1998, pp.169-176. 38 V.Irwin, “Nicosia’s daring diplomacy”, Planning, 55(9), (1989), pp.20-22. 39 N.Doratli, 2002. 40 H. Abu-Orf, “Collaborative planning in practice: The Nicosia master plan”, Planning Practice and Research, 20:1, 2005, pp.41-58. Here p.44. 41 UNCHS, 1982. 42 N.Doratli, 2002. 43 The Buffer Zone has been a hot topic in architectural design studies: at ITU, professor A.Ünlü and I.Akpinar conducted an undergraduate architectural design project on the re-thinking of the bi-communal urban division by the walls of the Buffer Zone in 1992. In 2002, at Emu, Professor I.Numan has coordinated a project with a group of master students for the bi-communal utilization of the zone. In 2008, at EMU, 150 students of the undergraduate foundation year under the coordination of Dr.Akpinar have re-studied the zone to project ‘a living bridge’ for a possible re-united future in Nicosia. 44 N.Doratli, 2002. 45 UNDP/UNCHS, 1985a 46 In this framework, UNDP is the UN's largest source of grants for development cooperation (almost 35m USD for N.Cyprus). Some argue that the amount proves that both the UN and the two sides are determined to save Nicosia for future generations. 47 UNDP/UNCHS, 1985b and H.Abu-Orf, “Collaborative planning in practice: The Nicosia master plan”, Planning Practice and Research, 20:1, 2005, 41-58, here pp.45-46. 48 M.Fasli, and others, 2007.

49 In Turkey, although there has been a rise of tolerance towards the Islamists, it has been not so for all sects of Islam – the heterodox sect Alevi (almost 1/3 of Turks) has been discriminated, mainly because men and women are praying together. Once collaborated with the political power, the Orthodoxy of Islam has become dominant over the heterodox sects and has strong stereotypes against the Alevis. D.Shankland, Islam and Society in Turkey. (Huntington: the Eothen Press, 1999), pp.132-168. 50 In the national census of 2006, population is 265,000; but practically, it is about 350.000 (approx. 100.000 Turkish Cypriots; approx. 250.000 citizens of the Republic of Turkey). Amongst the comers from Turkey, approx. 40.000 to 50.000 are military forces and around 20.000 are their families. 25.000 university students and 2000 university tutors. The rest has been migrant workers. See I.Y. Akpınar, www.arkitera.com, 25.01.2007. 51 S.Erder, 1999. “Where Do You Hail from? Localism and Networks in Istanbul,” in Keyder, ed., Istanbul. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. 1999, pp.161-171 52 I.Akpinar, “The Rebuilding of Istanbul after the master plan of Henri Prost, 1937-1960: from secularization to Turkish modernization. Unpublished PhD. thesis, UCL Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University of London, 2003. 53 ‘Hybrid’ has various meanings: anything derived from unlike sources, or composed of disparate elements; Composite; formed or composed of heterogeneous elements. See A.Anderson, “The Fiction of Function”, Assamblage, February, 2, 1987:20-25. 54 A similar process has been observed in Famagusta as well. See I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, “2008. 55 Quoted in I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, 2008. 56 M.Castells, The Power of Identity. (London, Blackwell, 1997). 57 D.Massey, “Power-Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place”, in J.Bird et al (eds.), Mapping the Futures. (1993). And also see D.Massey, For Space. (London: Sage, 2005). 58 See I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, 2008. 59 See I.Y. Akpinar, Ö.O. Olgaç, 2008.