My take + summary of “A Comparative Study of Planned and Spontaneous Gentrification Process” by Mehmet Emin Şalgamcıoğlu & Alper Ünlü

     The definition of "gentrify" is to restore and improve a house or an area to make it suitable for middle-class residents (Cowie, 1989). To understand gentrification, “filtering theory” is examined. Eventually all edifices will lose their value and integrity. This can cause many scenarios; one of them is, lower-class individuals will settle down in this place. Another scenario is, middle or upper class individuals are tempted to live in these areas because of its historical value. Which will be obtained by renovating these run-down properties. Which will cause the buildings to end up with higher property values. But gentrification is a long term process and it can differ in each location. Another factor is spontaneity, Planned and spontaneous gentrification has very different outcomes when Cihangir and Tarlabaşı gentrification cases are examined. As mentioned in the filtering theory, gentrification can occur in cases where urban land is upgraded in accordance to its history. Meanwhile in Tarlabaşı, social geography of the urban land and unique architectural pattern is erased. These two locations have very similar history. 

    At the end of the 19th century, Italian and Greek architects constructed art nouveau buildings in Pera and Cihangir, neighboring Tarlabaşı. Because of the September 6-7 events and immigration from the Anatolian section of Turkey has caused the property value at Cihangir to be lower. "Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen" (Petrie, 2012). In early 1990s, structures located in Cihangir has began to deteriorate which triggered settled inhabitants to step in and renovate, rehabilitate and improve the appearance of Cihangir. “No attempt was made by any authority to effect change or relocate the residents of the neighborhood.”(Şalgamcıoğlu, 2014). So the foundation of the gentrification process was led by residents themselves being self-developing urban life cycles. In Tarlabaşı’s gentrification case, the movement is led by the state aggressively. Causing local residents whom are minorities (such as queer people or people with ethnical backgrounds…) to be displaced. The socio-cultural structure is modified and original occupants are disregarded. This urban transformation project is the result of a gradual process that began after the Turkish Parliament passed Law 5366 (Anon, 2005), which was designed to protect and renew irreplaceable historical and cultural resources (Anon, 2005). People with lower incomes are driven from their own neighborhood for political or financial gain in the form of gentrification. Renovation process must start with embracing the historical background of the area and done accordingly. Modernized structures will not fit in as wished since it does not align with the original character. This gentrification case will result in empty homes, which defeats the purpose of self sustainable/self developing neighborhoods. 

     To finalize, the meaning of gentrification differs. Currently, people with higher incomes prefer modernized, minimalistic buildings with no historical ornament or such. So these structures are identified with upper class. In Cihangir, the structures changed because they were reconstructed by locals, which led to structures fitting in with their environment. Meanwhile in Tarlabaşı, people were led to abandon the environment before structures changed. Which led to loss of character and historical value.

Review of Viollet Le Duc's, William Morris' and John Ruskin's Views on Restoration/Conservation/Preservation

    In the early ages the motivation behind restoration was religious. Keeping the ancient building in their best shape was believed to maintain its divinity. Protection was the main idea rather than restoration, maintaining the basic needs of the edifice. Ascertaining the period, styles used in that period is a imperative decision, in order to ethically restore a building. Keeping the characteristics of the building is highly important. While restoring an edifice, it is also important to consider the structural stability of it since these structures would ideally be used and has to serve a certain purpose. The restoration process must start with determining a specific purpose for the building. Because, before starting any restoration project every aspect of the original and restorated version must be analyzed in detail. Any implementations or ornaments should be in accordance with the original structure in every aspect such as the material must be either the same or one with a similar property. For example new material must have similar durability, texture, strength, color, etc. 

    Eugene Emmanuel and Viollet Le Duc have been stating that restoration is needed for a building in order to maintain spirit, by increasing the lifespan of the building. They think the restorator must project the original architects visions as if they were working on the restoration of the project. Bur John Ruskin states otherwise, he does not encourage restoration if it includes any sort of change in the edifice. He highly encourages taking good care of the structure and maintain its well being whilst not making changes. He considers the restoration of a building to be killing its spirit, since the people who designed and constructed are to say what will happen to the structure and it is only their place to make any changes whatsoever. It is even considered to be a disrespectful act toward people who consider the structure to be monumental. The differentiation between this so called disrespect and ethical conservation must be decided by the local people who are involved with the building such as people living around the surrounding of the structure, people working in the structure, local architects, local engineers and local city planners. 

    Both parties have their rightful reasons and conclusions on ethical restoration. Many monumental structures must not be restored but preserved (as John Ruskin seeks) since they hold a moral value to them that should not be disrespected. How to differ ethical restoration from unethical restoration will always be a dilemma. There are many great examples on restoration projects that have resulted in the final project having its own character aside from the original structure. How to decide it this differentiation is unethical or insufficient when compared with the original version? Criticizing the structural aspects, architectural aspects is a valid criteria. Materials used in the stabilization process the or any ornament must be superior when compared with the old material. The material must be in accordance with the surrounding and it should be implemented correctly. The local craftsman should be included in the process since local materials are used by them the best.

Amsterdam Declaration Comparison with Athens and Venice Charter

 

After WW2, for the sake of protecting natural and cultural heritage, particular institutions have gathered in meeting of varying scales and developed certain principles, criteria’s and regulations. These developments have been recorded in various sorts of documents.

Athens Charter, 1931 emphasizes on criticizing certain mistakes that have been implemented that would result in loss of character and historical value.  This charter emphasizes on protecting cultural heritage to the extreme of reburying an excavated site if it is not planned on being restorated immediately. The artwork that are located around the historical site should be removed since they were designed to be discouraged. Historical sites must be under strict governance. They should be conserved without making drastic changes. Changes should be aligned with the period that the original structure has been constructed and the area surrounding the heritage site. If the edifice is being restored in order to be used for a purpose, this purpose must be similar or familiar to the original purpose of the edifice. The material does not have to be the same as the original material. Modern materials like reinforced concrete should be used in order to increase the life span of the building. In the case of an emergency, public authorities are obligated to take any measures and in order to protect monuments with historical value for different countries.

Venice Charter, 1964 is developed in order to enlarge the scope. As the humans become more conscious about the importance of cultural heritage, problems become more complex and they should be handled with a detailed charter. Structures must have a regular maintenance and should be renovated for a purpose. The location that the historical heritage was found must not be relocated or any artwork should be relocated for the purpose of preservation. Material selection should be in accordance with the original materials. And additions are strictly forbidden, so if the historical are is in ruins, only maintaining the building is allowed.

Amsterdam Declaration, 1975 is aiming to develop a more international, larger scoped regulation for the preservation of historical heritage. Contrary to charters mentioned above, Amsterdam Declaration emphasizes on preserving towns/villages/historical interests rather than just structures. Financial aid for all historical preservations must be funded. And any major change should be avoided on rehabilitating old areas. In Amsterdam Declaration, education about the topic of restoration and preservation is also mentioned. This allows the younger generation to be informed about the topic even further and be conscious about local cultural heritages.

        The scopes are changing as the time progresses, level of detail increases. But mainly Amsterdam Declaration handles restoration on a larger scale by involving urban and regional planning. One of the principles that the Venice and Athens Charter have in common is the documentation and publication of any sorts must be done in a detailed manner. Reports and documentation about restoration process must be shared internationally. Apart from Amsterdam Declaration and Athens Charter, Venice Charter does not include proposal for any sort of government responsibility. But rather  focuses on peoples perceiving of restoration and conservation. While Amsterdam Declaration proposes independent organizations to be encouraged.