**4. Rising to a world city again: 1950 – 2000**

The end of World War I (1918) was at the same time the end of the Ottoman dynasty, analogous the fate of the Habsburgs (in Austro-Hungary) and Wilhelm II at Berlin. For Istanbul the time that followed was extremely hard. When Kemal Pasha, a cavalry officer and leader of nationalist young men (who complained about the decline of Turkey) got the leadership of the post-Ottoman country, he decided upon Ankara as the new state capital. Turkey was a very undeveloped country in that time and the decision was correct, in respect to enforce modernisation in the Asiatic hinterland.

But for Istanbul the decision meant losing its international reputation with the embassies and other international organisations moving to Ankara. Another significant blow was the exchange of population between Turkey and Greece in the early 1920s, repeated in part in the 1950s: Istanbul lost most of its Greek and Armenian population. This seriously held back the city's development for decades and turned it to a (mostly) monoethnic society. After a stagnant period (1920–1945), this situation was the starting point of the development after WW II, which is characterised as *a period of rapid growth, a changing urban structure* and *takeoff phases* as shown in Fig. 3. For the corresponding spatial development see Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Steps to a global city: the spatial change and social development of Istanbul 1950- 2000. Three stages of urban development and two phases of "take off". Concept: M. Seger.

In the decades between 1950 and 1970, Istanbul's growth was driven by an intensive industrialisation, especially in the following branches: textile, leather, clothes, chemical goods and machinery. A city of 1.2 million inhabitants in 1950, this number rose to 1.9 million in 1960 and to 3 million in 1970. The growth of the population was dominantly caused by migration, mostly unskilled and from Anatolia. The industry was located west of

The end of World War I (1918) was at the same time the end of the Ottoman dynasty, analogous the fate of the Habsburgs (in Austro-Hungary) and Wilhelm II at Berlin. For Istanbul the time that followed was extremely hard. When Kemal Pasha, a cavalry officer and leader of nationalist young men (who complained about the decline of Turkey) got the leadership of the post-Ottoman country, he decided upon Ankara as the new state capital. Turkey was a very undeveloped country in that time and the decision was correct, in respect

But for Istanbul the decision meant losing its international reputation with the embassies and other international organisations moving to Ankara. Another significant blow was the exchange of population between Turkey and Greece in the early 1920s, repeated in part in the 1950s: Istanbul lost most of its Greek and Armenian population. This seriously held back the city's development for decades and turned it to a (mostly) monoethnic society. After a stagnant period (1920–1945), this situation was the starting point of the development after WW II, which is characterised as *a period of rapid growth, a changing urban structure* and *take-*

*off phases* as shown in Fig. 3. For the corresponding spatial development see Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Steps to a global city: the spatial change and social development of Istanbul 1950- 2000. Three stages of urban development and two phases of "take off". Concept: M. Seger.

In the decades between 1950 and 1970, Istanbul's growth was driven by an intensive industrialisation, especially in the following branches: textile, leather, clothes, chemical goods and machinery. A city of 1.2 million inhabitants in 1950, this number rose to 1.9 million in 1960 and to 3 million in 1970. The growth of the population was dominantly caused by migration, mostly unskilled and from Anatolia. The industry was located west of

**4. Rising to a world city again: 1950 – 2000** 

to enforce modernisation in the Asiatic hinterland.

the peninsula, at the Golden Horn and on the Asiatic bridgehead of the city. The migrants built their squatter homes in general near to the factory sites, so called *Gecekondu* – meaning 'built over night'. A ring of *squatter areas* characterised the fringe of the city, its new inner parts dominated by apartment blocks. The direction of the growth at that time is documented in Fig. 4 and the fragmentation of the *shape of the city in three main parts* (Penisula, north of Golden Horn, bridgehead in the east) produced several subcentres. Up to 1985 (1985: 5,8 mio. inhabitants) new industrial areas were founded and the crowded situation made it necessary to remove most of the industries out of the city - the start of *environment protection*.

Fig. 4. Changes in the urban form of Istanbul 1950-2010: ribbon development at the seaside, growth and fragmentation, satellites and displacement of industry, belt of Gecekondu, later upgrading. Draft M. Seger.

The *CBD areas* (Fig. 1) underwent the following changes in the period 1950–1970:


Istanbul's Backbone - A Chain of Central Business Districts (CBDs) 211

state's commercial and service activities and contributes 43% to Turkey's tax revenues. Most of the foreign banking institutions in Turkey and most of the private universities are located in the city. More than half of Turkey's exports and imports take place in Istanbul and about 7.6 million tourists and shoppers from abroad (2009 approximately, 22% of Turkey's tourism) visited Istanbul. The relation *services:industry* in the formal sector is 62:38 (Istanbul Chamber of Commerce 2009). Istanbul is still a goods producing city, beneath the growth of the financial sector and related variables (which indicates a post-industrial and globalised structure). The revenues of the relevant employees rose and a new middleclass has now been created. Their new lifestyle is oriented on real estate as well as on consumer attitudes:

What does this mean in relation to *CBD development* within the last decade? At first, the tremendous growth of the metropolis is fragmented by different functions and levels.

The dominant new CBD structures are located in the middle part of the metropolis, *continuing the CBD chain with a north bound axis*; see Fig. 1. The region north of the "triangle"


Photo 5. Konus-Hypermarket and Apartment-complex, Levent. Globalised aspects of

60 shopping malls were built in Istanbul between 2000 and 2005.

in Şişli is characterised by four facts:

architecture and lifestyle, "L" in Fig. 1.

Photo 5),

consequent reaction to the demand from a growing upper middle class only at Şişli and north of that area.


The *industrialisation* brought Istanbul back to the prime position among Turkey's cities and even before the fall of the iron curtain (1989) tremendous numbers of tourists from the socalled *socialist states* did their shopping tours in Istanbul. It was the time of *luggage trade* with the wholesale of western products at cheap prices. The low prices of Turkish goods are related to low wages for the working people in comparison to central Europe.

Photo 4. Road and shops in Şişli's Golden Triangle near the Osmanbey metro station. Founded in the 1970s, the area has become the most fashionable shopping district nowadays, 2010, "S" in Fig. 1.
