Flagship projects
The Halic¸ Cultural Valley is a flagship project which includes cultural centers and museums.
Halic¸ is located on both sides of the Golden Horn as part of the Historical Peninsula, and
transformation actually started in the mid 1980s as a top-down initiative (Bezmez, 2008).
With its 16 km long coast, the Golden Horn was historically a main industrial and shipyard
area, but the plan is to make Halic¸ into a cultural valley. The ‘‘Cultural Valley’’ project is
dealing with the refinement of the coasts and surroundings of the Golden Horn, regaining its
vitality with its historical and natural values. Along the coast of the Golden Horn (Halic¸) a
number of regeneration projects continue, most of them giving the old buildings new
functions. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources handed Silahtaraga Power Plant,
which was the first power plant built during Ottoman Empire times, to Istanbul Bilgi University
in 2004. The power plant is now a university campus, and has museums, like the Museum of
Modern Art and the Energy Museum, within the facility. The Rahmi Koc Museum of Industry
stands upon the foundations of a twelfth century Byzantium building and now the facility is
one of the most modern museums of Istanbul. The museum is not a profit-oriented initiative;
rather it is a prestige investment for the one of the biggest companies in Turkey (Bezmez,
2008). The municipality manages the Feshane Cultural Center in a renovated old textile
factory constructed in 1839, but it remains unnoticed by most of the residents (Bezmez,
2008). Furthermore, in the same area is now an open-air museum, Miniaturk. A renovated old
slaughterhouse is now the Sutluce Cultural Center, which opened in 2009 for the World Water
Forum. When all these projects are completed, many expect that Halic¸ will be one of the
most important areas to serve cultural tourism in the city. However, there have been critics of
the process ever since the Halic¸ emerged as a large empty land area after the
de-industrialization process in the 1980s. The objective is to internationalize Istanbul,
although public initiatives to manage the process remain weak. Moreover, Bezmez (2008)
points out that most of the residents still perceive Halic¸ as a place of deterioration and
isolation, and defines the area as including mostly local oriented projects, rather than what
was promised.
The Kartal Regeneration Project is also a flagship project on the Eastern side of Istanbul. The
area used to be an old industrial district and the transformation started spontaneously. Great
imbalances exist between the Eastern and Western sides of Istanbul in terms of distribution
of commerce, industry, culture and administration functions. Central Business Districts,
especially, are mainly on the Western side of Istanbul. This inequality not only exerts
pressure on the natural and historical fabric of the city, but unequal distribution of economic
functions also creates problems in transportation. In this sense, within the metropolitan plan,
the aim of the project in Kartal is to offset this imbalance and allow Kartal to gain more
importance as the area creates an alternative in the Eastern side to the current Central
Business Districts. There was an international competition for the Kartal regeneration
project, and the design of famous architect Zaha Hadid won the prize. This area will have a
privileged high density, while the Mayor pronounced Kartal the ‘‘Manhattan of Istanbul’’. The
project area is one of the largest urban regeneration areas in the world in terms of size,
number of offices, limited number of residences, cultural center, opera house, recreation
areas along the lake, public buildings, shopping mall, hotels, restaurants and marina.
However, critiques suggest that 60 percent of the planned construction in the scope of the
project is commercial area. Considering the scarcity of A grade office space in Istanbul,
Kartal will have twice as many offices as the current supply of Istanbul (Erso¨z, 2008). The
discussion questions whether these new offices are usable or necessary. Other criticisms
also exist about the density that will increase with the project, and the project’s adaptability to
the surroundings.
VOL. 4 NO. 3 2010 jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCHj PAGE 261
Other projects differ according to their location and focuses (Table III, Figure 3). Since most
of these projects are still in the decision process rather than in the implementation phase, it is
preferable to indicate the diversification and typologies of these regeneration projects. While
some of them are Central Business District (CBD) integrated projects including the
transformation of industrial areas to extend to the CBD by highlighting cultural industries, two
of them, which are at the main gates of the city as the harbor and/or customs area, are
mega-waterfront development projects in the central part. Several regeneration projects
also exist in the Istanbul Master Plan which aims to design and develop the periphery in an
organized manner. The second and third rings include two Hosting Events Projects, while
four of them are peripheral recreation and tourism centers on the two sides of Istanbul. These
projects would address the long term challenge to create not only new economic activities
but also new visitor attraction areas within the city, rather than concentrating only on the
historical peninsula.
Conclusion
This paper evaluates how culture is used in the regeneration process with respect to cultural
tourism in Istanbul. Recently, the changing structure of cities has enhanced the significance
of cultural tourism, both for raising their cultural heritage and for developing new activities
and areas for attracting visitors. This makes cities more competitive by creating landmarks in
the city and giving importance to creative and cultural industries as new economic activities
and attractions which are complementary to the heritage sites.
Istanbul, in defining its role of being a global city, and as being the heart of economic and
cultural activities of Turkey, needs to emphasize its vitality. With these challenging objectives,
restructuring the city has several dimensions, such as conserving cultural and natural sites,
sustainability, increasing quality of life, economic development and diversification.
Therefore, the regeneration activities have become more and more significant with their
focuses and processes. The analysis of regeneration projects in Istanbul indicates that
culture and tourism are included as major activities. However, their focus and dominance
changes, as culture and tourism become important components to increase the quality of life
in the city and attract more visitors. Except for the heritage sites, most of the projects are
developing based on a consumption-led approach, with the goal of economic and property
development. The contents of the projects follow world experiences and are classified with
respect to different cultural regeneration strategies. Moreover, their focus is much more on
creating ‘‘flagships’’ as prestige areas of the city, and a citadel of spectacle for city users.
The criticisms of ongoing projects are that they are fragmented, the scale of privileged
densities, the dominance of commercial areas, the ignoring of the impacts on surrounding
areas and the people who live in those areas, and that these create issues of gentrification
and social exclusion and neglect the concept of public interest.
However, it is quite early to evaluate the impacts of these projects on cultural tourism and
urban development, and to see whether they have brought a diversification of the economy,
an enhancement of the tourism infrastructure, a raise in the number of visitors and revenues,
and an increase in the quality of life in Istanbul. These benefits may be achieved if the
governing bodies manage projects by considering the criticisms mentioned above and by
emphasizing the uniqueness of Istanbul rather than increased homogenization.