Resurrecting the Ottoman Glory of Istanbul?

“A new gigantic Sinanesque mosque, the restoration of an Orientalist style barracks building, popularization of “1453 conquest” mentality for Istanbul and of course the insertion of “Golden Horn” metaphor in the shape of a bridge…To make a long story short, all these account to the reinvention of a neo-Ottoman eclectic style,” said Edhem Eldem, history professor at Boğaziçi University.

20 history professors from Boğaziçi University launched a petition against the environmental damage of Istanbul’s new gigantic construction projects, a campaign that has promptly been signed by at least 224 professors from other universities.

The petition statement warns that Istanbul’s new construction efforts -including third bosporus bridge, golden horn bridge, intercontinental tube highway, Çamlıca Mosque and urbanization efforts in historical districts – might cause irretrievable damages on the city’s silhouette and integrity.

Edhem Eldem, one of the petition initiators, told bianet about the relation between history and city in the context of urban transformation projects in Istanbul.

“Academics’ opinions usually get ignored by municipalities”

What brought 20 historians together to write a petition on Istanbul’s urbanization projects?

We wanted to underline that Istanbul’s urbanization projects is heading towards a very dangerous direction. While urbanization projects relentlessly intervene Istanbul’s silhouette and integrity, officials always take the most crucial decisions without consulting non-governmental experts.

They also ignore our ongoing criticism on these projects. Government officials, especially municipalities, consider academics’ opinions as legitimate only in the borders of academia. When we express our concerns over a project, we are usually ignored.

In one of your articles, you wrote that the Turkish state’s desire to revive a sense of Ottomanism is fundamentally a dangerous phenomenon. Can you explain this in detail? How did the relation between city and history unfold Turkey?

Following the military coup of 1980, a wave of conservatism invaded Turkey. First, it revealed itself as a counter-leftist argument. Then, it evolved into a Turkish-Islamic synthesis during PM Turgut Özal era. And now, we observe a Turkish nationalism in the challenge to revive a new sense of neo-Ottomanism by bringing together Ottoman and Republic era cultures.

The biggest issue with this mentality is that it is highly nationalistic and tends to squeeze the plurality of an empire to the singularity of a nation-state. As a result, it doesn’t aim to praise the Ottoman Empire, but it simply praises the Turkish history from a nationalist perspective under the disguise of Ottomanism.

The situation gets worse when we add the kitsch and nostalgic Ottominism that has emerged since 1990s. In a way, Panorama 1453 Museum and Hotel Les Ottomans represent two different aspects of the same idea.

What about previous governments? Didn’t they affect Istanbul’s history?

One way or another, all governments that Istanbul has seen – including Ottoman governments – have affected the historical texture of the city. In the early days of Turkish Republic, when the capital moved from Istanbul to Ankara, it also brought a sense of ignorance towards Istanbul. We also observe several interventions to the city from republican bureaucrats to establish the Kemalist icons by replacing Ottoman ones.

“Praising the Turkish history under the disguise of Ottomanism”

What was the purpose?

This is not to say that every intervention on the city’s silhouette harbored a secret political agenda. We also observe a lot of changes due to economic motives or a desire to look more modern. Some changes in Istanbul’s landscape was pretty mild, while others had several negative consequences.

The impact of these changes fundamentally depends on the economic resources and political authorities. For example, we can say that former PM Adnan Menderes and former Istanbul major Bedrettin Dalan initiated changes in the city with serious negative consequences.

Do you believe the current government has a political agenda behind the construction projects?

We are worried that the current construction projects have a political agenda and cause irretrievable damages to the city. It would be wrong to say that the government has a political agenda vis-à-vis Istanbul, but it is also true that the government aims to convey a political message through these projects.

The very idea that every government desires to leave a mark during its ruling era is a very political idea. We don’t only trace these political marks through infrastructure repairs and various services, but also with buildings and artifacts “that speak for themselves”: A new gigantic Sinanesque mosque, the restoration of an Orientalist style barracks building, popularization of conquest mentality for Istanbul and of course the insertion of “Golden Horn” metaphor in the shape of a bridge…To make a long story short, all these account to the reinvention of a neo-Ottoman eclectic style.

“New projects might leave a black stain on the city’s silhouette”

So, do the efforts to reconstruct the history in Istanbul indeed cause the destruction of another “history” in the city?

Istanbul has many historical, cultural and archeological layers and it is so hard to protect them at the same time. Sometimes for the preservation of one layer, you need to let go of another. In this sense, it is highly understandable that the Byzantine layer is facing the biggest danger now, but the negative impacts can be reduced to minimal through balanced preservation policies.

For example, the municipality showed a remarkable patience on the subway construction in Yenikapi district where several ancient ruins were discovered. But at the same time, the municipality insists on the golden horn bridge project, which is not other than black stain on the city’s silhouette.

The sad part is that these projects are inspired from Ottoman era marvels. In addition to that, we find it hard to understand why only Orientalist barracks and non-remarkable mosques benefit from renovation efforts. We know that a perfect planning doesn’t exist and you can’t preserve all the history of a vibrant city, but it is still possible to choose the best alternatives with a little but more caution and open discussion.

“This nostalgia is more about a commodification of the city”

As a historian, which historical building in Istanbul needs the most urgent attention?

It is so hard to pick one! But I can give a few examples: Valide Mosque in Aksaray district with its ugly and inadequate renovation, or Mecidiye Kasri with a rococo style renovation that doesn’t fit to the rest of Topkapi Palace. These are previous mistakes, but I am aiming to underscore that these mistakes were made in the course of history.

Nowadays, though, we have the Suzer Plaza which many people call “skycage” and “Holden Horn” Bridge. We can also count the classical style mosque made out of ytong material. Let’s not forget the kitsch Demiroren Mall in the heart of Istiklal Avenue. And lastly, the terrible restoration of ancient city walls in Ayvansaray district maybe.

One of your articles trace the influence of nostalgia in the current construction efforts? Do you think they are re-honoring the history? But then, why are there so many deconstructions in districts like Tarlabaşı, Fener and Balat?

This nostalgia was never innocent since it began in 1990s. It usually brings forth new speculations, profits and exchanges of property. Therefore, I would rather say that this nostalgia is more about a commodification.

But let’s be realist, you can’t completely avoid these dynamics. I think it would be more constructive to look for ways to control these mechanisms before they invade the entire city. We, as Istanbuiots, need to find a way to preserve the history of our city without submitting to the economic pursuit of the few.

Who are decisions makers in Istanbul? How do you rate Turkey in terms of transparency?

Isn’t that so obvious with Turkey? We still don’t have a culture of transparency and participation. Therefore, it is hard to say that our urbanization movement could be transparent and participatory either. But at the same time, all this work can’t be done as if it was a referendum. It risks nothing getting done at the end of the day.

The real issue is about creating a negotiation mechanism where non-government stakeholders and city resident would not feel excluded and uninformed. Ironic it seems, we are raising this criticism over AKP government because they made us feel more heard and participated in the construction efforts compared to previous administrations. But I should warn that they also started to resemble their predecessors by the time they stay in power. (NV)